#and yes it is lesbophobic even if you’re a lesbian saying this yourself

[lottienatsbian]

idk who needs to hear this but butchfemme is not “roleplaying heterosexuality.” it’s an important subculture within the lesbian community and has a rich history. please pick up a book and educate yourself before spouting lesbophobic garbage

[mithliya]

“im soooo sorry that when homopobes decided to insult lesbians, they didnt decide to dedicae extra time to make extra special slurs for you too. truly it must be so difficult for you and so painful to not be able to call yourself dyke.”

Exactly! Good point! You know why homophobes didn’t create a specific separate slur for bi women?? Because they call us DYKE! You realise how insane you sound, right? Pretending we’re begging for slurs of our own because they’re fun or something? When what’s really happening is we’re telling you we ALREADY get called slurs (such as dyke) and that it’s insane that you say we don’t have the right to use the very words that are hurled at us.

“Fucking disgusting dyke”

“Oh actually sir I’m bisexual”

“Oh! ExCUSE me! I’m SO sorry that I called you an inaccurate slur!”

Do you think this is how it works??? Genuinely do you think this? You think homophobes who call bi women dyke give a rats arse what the difference between us and lesbians is? They don’t give a shit that we are bi, they are abusing us for being same sex attracted and the slur is the same whether you’re lesbian or not.

I’m sorry but you can absolutely go fuck yourself telling an entire group of people who get a slur thrown at them (and specifically for being same-sex attracted. This isn’t a general insult word, it is thrown at same sex attracted women) that they can’t say it and you can because you OWN the slur or some shit.

It’s not the same as a masc het woman being called dyke because she’s NOT same sex attracted. If the homophobe called her a dyke and then found out she was straight they’d go “oh, I was mistaken”. If a homophobe finds out we are actually bi and not gay it is not going to change their response lmao. In fact, in my experience, it makes them angrier.

i loooove it when bi women come into my inbox to desperately fight for the right to call themselves lesbophobic slurs and despite me repeatedly saying “yes bi women can get called lesbophobic slurs. so can masculine het women. but neither has the right to be calling themselves slurs that literally mean lesbians” it gets turned into “no one but lesbians ever get called that slur!!!”

truly you guys are not even worth talking to bc you’re not even acknowledging my actual arguments.

“it’s not the same as masc het women getting called that bc unlike me they’re not same sex attracted!!” interesting how u create ur own criteria to differentiate when at the end of the day, both bi women & gnc het women get called the slur, the slur means lesbian, and neither are lesbians. lemme guess, gnc het women getting called dyke are the ones that should stop the person calling them that to say “oh actually im hetero!” and will get a nice and sincere apology from the homophobe hurling the slur at them?

weird how when it involves het women getting called a slur that doesn’t apply, you somehow understand the exact reasons lesbians don’t want you calling yourself a dyke. suddenly you realise these slurs have a meaning and so people who it doesn’t apply to by definition can’t be reclaiming it. but when we say the exact same, all of a sudden it’s sooo stupid of us to say “sure you get called that slur. but it literally means lesbian so u cant reclaim it”

[rantingcrocodile]

Kinsey 1 again. Well, yes, I do think that LGB spaces should be for same sex attraction only. It makes no damn sense for Kinsey 1s like me to be there. I don't really "actively hide being bi" or anything, because I have only ever actually felt like a little crush type attraction to a woman like 3 times in my life, and never acted on it. It's not something I ever think about because it doesn't really have any affect on my life. It's very minor and not important to me.

I just feel hurt I guess that kissing women at parties makes me lesbophobic or something. Which I haven't even done in years anyways. But it was just fun being drunk and high and comfortable with nice strangers. And then I see lesbians on here talk about how horrible that is because I wouldn't have a relationship with a woman, so that makes me evil and bad. Why would I want to go to an LGB space and talk about this? It just makes me look like the living embodiment of the stereotype they hate, and it would make all the other bis who are 50/50 or febfem look bad by association. They could point at me and say to you, "look there she is! proof! all bi women do is make out at parties they are users who do not want love!"

And I have had a lesbian get a crush on me once, in community college. I told her I was straight of course. She was a very touchy feely person and was always hugging me when our group hung out, and I let her hug me even though it made me uncomfortable. I could tell she was still crushing on me even after I let her down. But I was not attracted to her.

I think it is better if I am straight, it is easier, healthier, better, because I do not have to deal with any of that bullshit drama. In the straight world, women can kiss and makeout and it is fun and free and happy and it doesn't make us bad people, it is just having some fun.

Life gets easier when you recognise that the biphobes are going to hate us for literally anything anyway. You need to live your life in a way that makes you happy.

Biphobic lesbians like to pretend that bisexuals are evil "bihets" that would never have a relationship with women and also predatory and obsessed with lesbians who are always in relationships with them and break their hearts. There is no winning here, they always have excuses.

I could reiterate what I said last night, but I want you to consider the opposite for a moment.

What do you think I would say to someone that came here, described herself essentially as a "febfem" and then said that it was "easier" and "less drama" to call herself a "lesbian" even though that wasn't true?

If you really considered yourself "straight" then none of this would bother you. You wouldn't be offended and hurt by biphobia because you could brush it off because it wouldn't apply to you.

You know my stance here. I'll always support you and be here for you, but I also really do think that you need to take some time and process all of this.

Edit: I just saw this second part afterwards, sorry!

They’re supposed to be support spaces that include bisexuals. 

In fairness, you’re completely hung up on the false belief that it’s about same-sex attraction and nothing else. They’re for bisexuals, too. 

Realistically, they’re not just to get support, they’re to give support as well. 

You don’t deal with the same problems that lesbians and gay men do, but you do face the same problems that other bisexuals have to go through, which is biphobia and the massive internalised biphobia that most bisexuals have.

It’s really not laughable at all. I wish you realised exactly how important and worthy you are, too.

[communistsans]

Bi/pan lesbian is not a term you should use.

Let me be clear, I think the experience you're describing is real, but the term is offensive to bi, pan, and lesbian people. Bi, pan, and lesbian are separate sexualities. They cannot be put together because they are directly contradictory. And before you say "what about x sexuality and ace," that is different, because the terms bi, straight, pan, lesbian, and gay all define the romantic and sexual parts of attraction. Ace only describes a lack of sexual attraction, leaving the question of who they are romantically attracted to. So if someone says they are ace and bi, it works because from that you know that they are attracted to women/men, but only romantically. You wouldn't say, "I'm aromantic, asexual, and bi," because all those things overlap. You can't be attracted to no one romantically or sexually AND be attracted to men/women. Lesbian describes a sexuality that means women/fem aligned people who are EXCLUSIVELY attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to women/fem aligned people. Bisexual describes a sexuality that means someone attracted (romantically and/or sexually) to 2 or more genders. Pansexual describes a sexuality that means someone attracted to others (romantically and/or sexually) regardless of their sex/gender.

So that's why the term is nonsensical, but why is it offensive to lesbians and bisexuals/pansexuals? I'm bi woman, so take my lesbian commetary with a grain of salt.

I believe every sexuality has a bit of wiggle room, and also that that doesn't mean that a person can't use the term gay/lesbian. I don't think a straight man being attracted to one guy makes him gay/bi, I don't think being a lesbian and being attracted to one guy makes her bi/straight. I'm bisexual and people often ask me if they are bi because they are attracted to x obviously attracitve celebrity, and the answer is usually no. It takes more than being attracted to a couple of people of the opposite sex to be bi/pansexual. What makes you bi/pan is being able to be genuinely attracted to, date, fall in love with, and be intimate with people of the same and different sexes/genders. I think straight and gay people alike can have genuine attractions that do not align with their sexuality and still be that sexuality. However the key here is that those are exceptions. When 99% of your experiences are exclusive to one gender then yes, you are gay/lesbian. I don't think that genuinely liking your high school boyfriend because he was a sweet guy and you hadn't figured yourself out yet makes you not a lesbian. And I think to say that it does is also lesbophobic. Just to get the whole "sexuality is fluid" out of the way.

Relationships between women are so often devalued, and lesbians often suffer from people erasing their sexualities, or people assuming that somehow they must be attracted to men in some way. This is a fucked up and lesbophobic way of thinking, and it's stupid that they have to deal with that. Lesbians shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of personal experiences for fear of having their sexuality questioned/invalidated. Politically speaking, it is critical for lesbians to ensure the term lesbian means a sexuality of women exclusively being attracted to women, please do not interfere with this term. It is important to their communities that it stays that way. However I know what is politically convenient isn't always what is personally true. On a personal note, I think the distinction should be this: if you HAVE BEEN attracted to a couple of men in your life but could never see yourself being with a man and being happy, and can easily say that 95% or more of your attraction has been exclusively to women, you are a lesbian. If you ARE attracted to men and could see yourself being happy in a relationship with a man, you are bisexual or pansexual. As a bisexual person, I don't experience or see my attraction to either men or women as exceptions, they are both natural and part of my sexuality. I also want to note that it is unfair and lesbophobic to assume that because someone has liked one guy in their life it somehow discredits the rest of their experiences, especially when we dont hold gay men to the same standard. In fact, its usually the opposite! If a straight man has one experience with another guy everyone assumes he must be gay/bi, even though he has only ever been attracted to women. Ultimately, if someone says they are a lesbian, they like women and just women. End of story. Yes there could be different personal anecdotes, but lesbians are attracted to women alone. To say otherwise is lesbophobic. If you are attracted to men, you aren't a lesbian.

Implying that lesbians are attracted to men is lesbophobic, so why is the term "bi lesbian" also biphobic? Well because in addition to erasing the meaning of lesbian, it also erases the meaning of bi. Bisexuals are often believed to secretly be straight or gay. We are not gay or straight, we're bi. I get the term is trying to say that you have a strong preference for women; many bisexuals have a preference, however you are still bi. If this "preference" is that strong to the point where you basically are near exclusively attracted to women, then you are probably a lesbian. You are either a bi person with a preference for women, or you are a lesbian. You cannot be both bi and a lesbian. Substitute bi for pan here and the commentary is the same.

I've also seen people who say they call themselves bi/pan lesbians because they are attracted to women and also to nonbinary people. And okay, I see where you're coming from here, but that doesnt mean the term isn't offensive. Gender non-conforming and nonbinary lesbians are a thing and I'm not about to police nb lesbians; they have always existed and been important parts of the lesbian community. But if the only nb people you find yourself being attracted to are nb lesbians and other fem aligned people, you're still a lesbian. If you aren't comfortable with that because it erases some peoples identity, then use bi/pan, because those are the terms to describe attraction to 2 or more genders. Or use queer! I knew a couple in college who were a lesbian couple until one of them came out as trans masc. To not invalidate them, their partner said they were queer instead of lesbian.

Another person I have seen using this term is women who are basically bi/pan or even straight who for whatever reason have stopped dating men permanently, despite being attracted to them, and this actually has some historical precedent. During 2nd wave feminism these women called themselves "political lesbians," giving up dating men in order to free themselves from misogyny. If this is your experience, do what you want, but again, the term bi/pan lesbian is harmful to lesbians and bi/pansexuals and please call yourself something else. I think it's fine to call yourself a lesbian or gay for convenience sake if you really do never plan on dating men again. Please just understand that the lesbian/bi/pan communities need to have the integrity of these terms for political reasons. Lesbian is not an umbrella term the way gay or queer is. On a personal level, yes there is wiggle room, but on political level these terms need to have definitions.

Ultimately if you identify as a bi/pan lesbian, please stop using that term. It's problematic for lesbian, bi, and pan communities and frankly makes no sense. If you want a fluid term, you can always just say "queer" or "queer with a preference for women." Normally I don't care about what people identify as and I against gatekeeping, because in the end it doesn't hurt anyone. But this isn't about gatekeeping. The term bi lesbian is harmful, which is why I'm asking anyone defending that term to please reconsider. If you identify with this term, I'm not sending hate your way and I'm not trying to invalidate you. I'm just saying this term is harmful and there are plenty of other non problematic ways to describe your sexuality, like wlw, nblw, sapphic, or queer.

If I got something wrong here please tell me! I just think there is a lot of really hateful debate going on here and it's extremely unnecessary. But my final stance is that the term bi lesbian/pan lesbian is offensive, biphobic, and especially lesbophobic, and we should do better by the lesbian community, who are constantly being erased.

[crockettmarcel]

Can you keep your anti-Buddie whining on the main tag instead of putting it in the Buddie tag? I get that it upsets you that there are more Buddie fans than there aren't and that people like mlm ships better than wlw ships. That's just the way it is, unfortunately, and all you're doing by putting it in the Buddie tag is ruining other people's fandom experience and annoying people.

oh man there is so much to unpack here

I can only think of one post that could be considered “anti-Buddie” and that’s this one, which I tagged as buddie bc it’s my blog, and I like my posts to be tagged in a relevant way. as for the others here and here, they’re about the amount of rep in the 911/LS fandoms, and are Not a criticism of Buddie. if you see someone talking about how a certain demographic is underrepresented in fandom and automatically assume that’s an attack on your ship, then that’s a problem that you have to deal with yourself I’m afraid

wanting more rep for wlw =/= wanting less/none for Buddie, and if that’s all you got from my posts then you really missed the point, and should probably go back and read them again

and yes it does upset me that people don’t have the same enthusiasm for wlw content as they do for mlm - I don’t feel like one should be loved more than the other because that won’t solve anything, but I do think people should start analysing why they find m/m fics so much better than f/f fics. if you claim to like LGBT characters, but only consume content with two conventionally attractive gay men then I’m sorry but you’re actually just fetishizing gay men and their relationships

also “that’s just the way it is” is one of the worst things people say in regards to bad situations. it doesn’t have to be this way!! it is possible for things to change, and that’s why I’ve been making these posts! most people aren’t even aware of the problem, which means it won’t change. but by bringing light to the situation, it allows people to reassess their biases, and focus on making a difference (I’m aware this isn’t the biggest social justice issue right now by far, but it’s still something that needs to be talked about in fandom spaces)

and as for “ruining other people's fandom experience and annoying people”...

how do you think it feels being a lesbian in fandom spaces who never sees themselves represented? because that’s kind of ruining mine (and others’) fandom experiences

if your fandom experience is ruined by lesbians talking about the discrimination they face, then you should probably think to yourself about why real people are less important to you than a fictional (not even canon) relationship

the buddie tag is constantly getting new content, and my posts have pretty much been buried by now. also, if you’re annoyed by three (3) posts about lesbians not being represented out of hundreds of posts about a gay couple, then you’re probably lesbophobic

it’s pretty annoying seeing that fics for a non-canon gay couple make up over 70% of the content on AO3, but fics for a canon lesbian couple make up less than 2% of it (that’s not to say that there’s anything wrong with m/m couples or Buddie specifically, but it just feels weird that people will die for m/m couples and completely disregard wlw)

anyway I’m sorry that you feel like the underrepresentation of lesbians in media and fandom content is an attack on your ship, but maybe you should take a step back and consider that this show isn’t real, but the exclusion of lesbians very much is, and not just in fandom spaces. the lack of fics is just a symptom of a larger problem that lesbians face - we’re constantly ignored and forgotten about in so many different contexts. I’m not going to go into it all now, but the one thing I’ll say is that during pride month we’re constantly left out of pride posts, despite being the first letter of the acronym. and that’s during pride. people don’t respect lesbians the way they respect gay men, and I’m allowed to be angry about this. I’m also allowed to tag my posts how I want, especially in a tag where they’ll be buried in a few days, and if you really have a problem with that you can block me

[winglssdemon]

Lesbians are NOT attracted to men. That's literally the definition of being a lesbian. I shouldn't even have to say this but yes that includes trans men. Lesbians ARE/can be attracted to women and/or any form of nonbinary folk. Lesbians can be women or nonbinary, just not men. Men are NOT included.

Before I accepted my lesbian self, I used to consider myself bisexual, and straight before that. None of these are bad identities to be. I merely learned that my belief that I was almost 99% a lesbian and 1% straight was both lesbophobic and biphobic and that that 1% of liking men was from lingering compulsory heterosexuality. You can still be bisexual and 99% into women and 1% into men. But if you keep finding yourself thinking, hey I never want to date a man even tho i find this *one* unachievable or fictional man attractive, you might want to look into compulsory heterosexuality.

Before I came out as lesbian, I tried really hard to like men. But there was always ALWAYS some reason why I couldn't date or continue to date them. It literally took *therapy* for me to recognize that I only tried to date/like unattainable men because I didn't *actually* want to date them. But its SO forced in society that all relationships should have some focus on men (see the are you the man or the woman questions, or how do you know if you're a lesbian if you haven't fucked a man, or maybe all other men suck, but I'm definitely better and I'll teach you to like men, etc.)

It is OKAY to have a sexuality that doesn't include men!!!

It is NOT OKAY to try and make lesbians include men.

[itsevidentvery]

hey i'd like to know more of your thoughts on the national theatre's 2017 twelfth night production because from your tags you seem to have a pretty strong opinion of it

I do have a strong opinion. And I will now tell you all of it. Oh, nonnie. I’m so terribly sorry. But you did ask.

TL;DR: Fabulous performances, really ingenious set design, gorgeous music, and the show’s commitment to laughs pays off, resuscitating characters I only ever expected to endure, not enjoy. BUT. Lacks a coherent throughline, and its choices come off as kinda lesbophobic.

Okay, so. we’ll do a list because I don’t know if you wanted a review, per se?

Pros:

1. I saw this production live in 2017, and I can confirm that the set design is terrific. There’s a sweeping central graduated staircase which doubles as the prow of a ship (where Viola and Sebastian are separated), allows actors to play vertically as well as horizontally, and doubles skilfully as an exterior facade and an interior which suggests a conservatory, a courtyard and a pool. And they made use of the Olivier Theatre’s revolving plate to keep scene shifts fluid and seamless. Crucial for a production that prided itself on being nimble and motoring you efficiently from joke to joke.

2. Big big fan of the music. ‘Come away death’ and ‘the rain it raineth every day’ are such earworms, my God.

3. The performances! 

a. Tamsin Greig’s Malvolia is a fairly familiar Welsh-accented priss (that’s quite classic), but she was excellent, pitiable and heartbreaking all at once. 

b. Daniel Rigby makes such a sublimely stupid Sir Andrew, so tragically eager to please. 

c. And I know I’ve gone on about Oliver Chris before, but you’ll forgive me - this was actually my introduction to his exquisite arpeggio on the theme of Mad Toff. I hadn’t yet seen him in One Man, Two Guv’nors or Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Bridge Theatre. All I knew was that a pretty white boy was playing Orsino, and I was bracing myself for some swooning drip pouting about his precious feelings. And then on bounds a Golden Retriever who proceeds to excitedly bark his way through that famous first speech. And I sat up and thought ‘oh holy fuck, I might actually enjoy this character? For the first time ever?’

4. And I think that kinetic take on Orsino is a really happy artefact of the production’s adamant focus on finding the laughs above all else. Which is not a terrible thing - the play is supposed to be a comedy, and I think West End productions can often head waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too far in the other direction, barrelling into some dreadful wintry po-faced place where everyone’s allergic to laughter. It’s hard to strike the balance between Twelfth Night’s autumnal melancholy and its often cruel humour, and if I had to choose I guess I prefer a sunny production?

Cons:

1. Okay, so like. Normally when a production chooses a time period, it’s integrated in some way? Like, usually the aesthetics will reflect something about the time period’s attitudes to sexuality (usually)? Which is why late 19th century/early 20th century is popular, for example. You can get all Bloomsbury set, or Wildean aesthete. That sort of thing. This production was set in the sixties, and - while the fashion was on point - I didn’t really see what they were alluding to, or why they chose that time period? And it doesn’t have to be super on-the-nose or anything, but they made a bunch of choices that just seemed like someone fancied doing it and just bunged it in. Like, there’s a whole sequence with drag performers singing Hamlet soliloquies for like ... no good reason. Not that I think Hamlet’s sacred, but ... they were just ... there? To add a window-dressing of loucheness, I guess? 

2. Which is sort of related to my big, big problem with the production. I think it got credit for being more queer-friendly than it was. (Straight (male)) reviewers tended to make a big deal of how kick-ass it was that Malvolio was now Malvolia, and that she harboured a Sapphic Passion for Olivia now. But, I mean. Okay, fine.

a. The production - and the play - are not... sympathetic... to Malvolio’s pretensions of becoming Count(ess) Malvolio/a. I don’t know if yet another caricature of the Sad Creepy Mrs Danvers Lesbian is the wlw representation we are looking for in 2017, let alone 2020.

b. The play already has a doomed lesbian passion, remember? Olivia throws herself at “Cesario” even though she's unambiguously rejected each time, and ends the play fobbed off onto a man she’s never spoken to before, just because he looks like the person Olivia actually wants. To the production’s credit, they give Olivia the dignity of having her be visibly unhappy about this. 

c. To the production’s DIScredit, the Malvolia genderswap means that we now have two - two for the price of one! - crazed lesbians who are roundly slapped down and end up out in the cold.

d. The production is kinder to men who love men, though. Antonio is treated with dignity, and Orsino gets to make out with both his “dear lad” and his future brother-in-law, which is nice for him.

e. Also I guess Sir Andrew has a thing for Sir Toby? But - more to the point - is disillusioned violently by his parasitic sot of a confrere, and leaves with whatever’s left of his fortune intact.

f. The production lobs in a completely unnecessary gay panic moment. When Viola confirms to Sebastian that she is indeed Viola, Orsino exclaims “YES!” and crumples in relief. Not in the play, throws off the rhythms of a lovely tender moment of the seblings reuniting, and rubs its sweaty No Homo retroactively all over the production. 

g. Unfortunately, Oliver Chris sells it. YOU SHOULD NOT SELL THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT BE SOLD, OLIVER CHRIS. I laughed, but I hated myself for it.

h. Also, to the production’s credit, you are bi as fuck, Orsino my lad. You can’t make out with someone you’re convinced is a boy and say that you “tender [him] dearly”, or that he is a “lamb that I do love” and retcon yourself straight. Soz. 

Ahem. Anyway. So. Lots to enjoy, lots that made me gnash my teeth, the National’s not taken it down yet, so I’d still give it a go!

[thewoesofyaoi]

What's up with glum shoe?

OH MAN

Ok well I’m sure people have made like Actual Callout Posts about this person so I’m not gonna like add screenshots to this post or anything (they have a discourse tag on their blog, you can just check for yourself tbh) but here’s the gist:

Basically for a long time GS identified themselves as like sexuality-ambiguous transmasc— iirc they claimed to not be straight but it was clear they were attracted to women, but like a lot of transmascs are bi, so nbd, nobody thought anything of it. The fuckery started when GS made a post that was like “when you find out a cute girl is straight: 😕 when you find out a cute girl is gay: 😕” and everyone was like “yo dude, not cool, complaining about women being lesbians isn’t cool... this is also really fetishistic of bi women...”

GS FLIPPED out. Most people assumed this was like, a case of a het transmasc lamenting that str8 women wouldn’t find them attractive due to being trans (which is a genuine problem het trans people face, cishet people’s transphobia), and that they just did it in a gross and insensitive way where they also brought lesbians into the realm of complaint for no good reason (which I still think is what was at the root of the issue here tbh, a lot of het trans people “forget” that they can’t just complain about people being gay and be absolved from homophobia bc they’re trans or used to ID as gay before transition). But GS insisted that no, this isn’t about them hating lesbians, for you see, they ARE a lesbian! Checkmate atheists!

So, everyone was understandably confused by this. If you’ve been IDing as transmasc for years, and have talked about being stealth as a male camp counselor, they said, how are you a lesbian? You can’t be a lesbian and transmasc. GS explained (after much arguing with lesbians and telling them to shut up and stop overreacting) that they actually never really were transmasc, they’re a nb lesbian, but they felt they didn’t need to explain this to a bunch of yahoos on tumblr because they OBVIOUSLY overestimated our ability to grasp gender complexity 😤.

Understandably, people found it suspicious that this lesbianism revelation only came to light after wlw started calling them out for being lesbophobic and fetishizing bi women, especially given how gung-ho they were about being transmasc and being stealth and whatnot. There had been NO indication of this distance from maleness before (worth noting that up until all this happened they used he/him pronouns; after this incident they switched to they/them). But, many still trying to keep an open mind, said “ok GS, so you’re a cis-aligned lesbian who wanted to medically transition. No big deal, lots of lesbians do that. And maybe you found it easier to let people think you were a man than explain your reasons for wanting to medically transition. But why would you then be complaining about other women being lesbians? If you’re a lesbian, would other lesbians not be a large portion of your dating pool?”

This is where the fuckery gets real thick. GS explained that, you see, they have this NEED to pass as a man. It goes beyond safety or ease of access to medical transition, this is Part Of Their Gender, that they’re a lesbian who needs to be read as a man by most people. Given this, they say, most lesbians who express attraction to them irl would be doing so even though they KNEW that GS wanted to be seen as a man, and thus those lesbians would probably be terfs. And GS doesn’t want to date terfs. So you see, the only viable partners for them are bi women, because str8 women wouldn’t be interested in them as a lesbian, and lesbians would either not be interested bc they’d see GS as a trans man or would only be interested bc they didn’t take GS’s transition seriously. And even if a lesbian by some miracle, with their puny lesbian brain, understood this Gender Complexity©️, all the people GS interacts with irl who think they’re a man would get suspicious at the fact that they were dating a lesbian and thus this hypothetical lesbian gf would ruin the facade of maleness that GS feels compelled to put up in their day to day life.

So, of course everyone was like “🤔 for a lesbian you sure seem awful lesbophobic and disparaging of other lesbians’ understanding of gender. Why would you assume you’re the only lesbian who has a complex relationship to both maleness and femaleness? And beyond that, it really sounds like when you say ‘lesbian’ you’re only thinking about AFAB lesbians.” It’s also confusing that GS seemed intent on positioning themselves in society as a man— to the point of only wanting to date women who are interested in men, because apparently a lesbian simply lying and being like “ah yes, this Man is my Boyfriend” (a thing that lesbian friends of mine who needed to be read as men for safety in certain situations have asked their female-reading lesbian gfs to do without issue) is like not sufficient— but still insists they’re a lesbian at heart. And the way they frame this insistence is “I don’t need to explain my gender complexity to you, tumblr riffraff. But you shouldn’t assume being a lesbian makes me a woman or even woman-aligned, for I Reject Alignment Terminology.”

It seems clear that GS has simply no interest in confronting the material reality of their situation. Like, personally, as a gay transmasc person, this to me reeks of a het transmasc not wanting to accept their (highly context-dependent) ability to access straight and male privilege. Of a het transmasc feeling estranged from the cis norm of straightness and maleness, and thus concluding that they are neither straight nor male, rather than acknowledging that these identities can be complex too. It’s the kind of thing that doesn’t really seem insidious unless you actually ARE both trans and gay or both trans and a woman (or all 3), in which case all you see is yet another example of someone who holds power over you coopting your identity to make themselves feel better about this power.

[96percentdone]

Why does everyone assume Ouma and Tenko are gay? Nowhere in the game did they ever say "hey, I only like men/woman" Ouma did not show any interest towards men outside of joking comments and even if he did, he could still be bi or pan, Tenko showed interest in woman but she never explicitly said only woman so so could she, I don't think it's fair ya'll are claiming people as homophobes for having a hetero/bi hc for characters who were never even stated to have a canon sexuality

Anon I’m going to be frank with you; I am very tired of having this conversation. It almost never goes well, and I shouldn’t have to keep explaining this. But hey I guess I will. Why not. 

Ouma is gay. It’s not a joke. It’s not joking comments. I could go through all of the not jokes, but that’s too much effort so I’m just gonna pick the crowner: Ouma’s piss poor alliance attempt in chapter 4. He tries, Saihara does the silent equivalent of ‘fuck off’, and Ouma’s alone. And he says this:

If you’re wondering why I’m using a Japanese screenshot, it’s because the boxed in text is what really matters, and the localization didn’t quite capture the meaning. There’s more on this here, from someone who speaks Japanese and goes more in depth, but the gist of it is this. 

The full line Ouma says something along the lines of “when i find someone I like I’ll do anything to get them to notice me, even strangle them.” But…the boxed text is what I specifically want to look at. the phrase is “suki ni natta hito” which is exclusively used when you’re talking about someone you’re falling in love with. It is entirely romantic. Harumaki even uses the phrase later for Momota. 

And moreover this is dialogue you cannot skip. It is just part of the main story. You have to read it. This is explicit proof Ouma likes men, because he says it about Saihara, a man. Doesn’t get more basic than that. Your stance on oumasai is irrelevant in the matter because it’s not about the ship, it’s about the gender of the person the sentiment is for. Ouma likes men.

As for Chabashira you pointed it out yourself. She’s very interested in Yumeno and also generally likes the woman around her. Notably, in text, more than once, she threatens the men around her with violence and gets upset at the prospect they want to touch her. Doesn’t sound very bi to me. The most annoying “she’s bi” comments are about the love hotel, and while I personally think you can just leave it as “Kodaka’s lesbophobic fantasy of conversion fucking a lesbian” given how relentlessly he coded her as one, here’s a post written in far more depth about how it’s not actually proof she’s bi. Do not come at me without reading it on Chabashira’s front. This is as far as I’m going on that.

But now to address your main point. You seem to think that unless someone explicitly screams “I am gay” they could therefore be bi or pan or whatever. I think that’s bullshit. I think if you have a character who in the text has only shown interest in the same gender (and same gender aligned nb folk), and never in anyone else, then that’s because they’re gay. It’s unfair to say “well they might show interest in the opposite gender, we just didn’t see it!” and use that as proof to tout the bi/pan hcs. You cannot make statements about canon based off of what might be true. If it’s not in the text, it’s not true. 

“but we do that with straight characters all the time!” Yes, we do. This is because straight characters are the default. A character isn’t coded as straight with their behaviors or with the gender they like. It’s assumed they’re straight, because it’s assumed the default person is straight. And straight people are abundantly represented by this logic. So it doesn’t hurt a straight person when you take a character who is defaulted as straight and go “actually they’re gay/bi/whatever” because unless shown otherwise, we’re supposed to assume they’re straight.

And you want to do that with characters who have actual coding that insinuates their sexuality too, but that’s not fair. We barely manage to get anything, and when a character is implied to be gay or a lesbian because it’s the only interest they’ve shown, and you go “well maybe they’re bi” just because they didn’t not show interest in the opposite gender, or shout out loud about being a lesbian, you’re holding gay and lesbian rep to the same standard as default straight. You are saying “any rep is bi unless it’s proven gay” when you wouldn’t do that for a bi character.

I see so much less of people taking canonically bi characters and going “maybe they’re just gay/lesbian.” I’m not saying no one has done that, they have, and I’m bi and it’s annoying, but I see a lot more of this. “they’re bi until proven otherwise.” And it’s really harmful to gay men and lesbians. When you take characters who are coded as their representation, and say they might not be that! based on things that weren’t in the text but maybe could be true and we just never saw it, you’re enforcing the “everyone in bi” mindset, and you’re telling them they have to prove themselves to you in order to escape that. You’re insisting gay people and lesbians don’t exist unless they’re loudly proclaiming themselves to the world. And that’s really harmful.

So there you go. Ouma is gay and Chabashira is a lesbian. If you’re going to just reiterate the same talking points, do not bother coming back.

[lichfucker]

stop fucking saying shit like “lesbians are capable of perpetuating misogyny”

if you cannot argue the point “straight women shouldn’t use gay bars to escape harassment from men” without saying “straight women aren’t even safe in gay bars because lesbians can be just as misogynistic as straight men” then guess the fuck what! you’re a lesbophobe!

are lesbians capable of harassing people? sure

but it’s not the same as misogyny, and it certainly is not comparable to the harassment and aggression straight women face at the hands of straight men

y’all really do love to pretend that lesbians are immune to gendered discrimination. like you really think lesbians are never, I dunno, targeted by misogyny? really?

y’all love to pretend lesbians are in league with straight men in the oppression food chain or whatever. you do realize that “attraction to women” is not the thing that gives straight men their societal power over straight women, right?

“straight women using gay bars as their safe space from straight men” isn’t flawed logic because ~lesbians can harass them too~

it’s flawed logic because gay bars are gay people’s (yes, including gay women) safe space from straight people (yes, including straight women)

straight women having their bachelorette parties at gay bars isn’t some fucking boon for lesbians bc hey, look, women are here! straight women encroaching on gay spaces is just as dangerous for gay women as it is for gay men

I don’t understand why y’all are so willing, every time, to paint lesbians with the same brush as straight men. I don’t understand why it’s so easy, every time, to invoke the predatory lesbian stereotype in the hopes it’ll scare straight women out of gay spaces. why are we the weapon you use to protect yourself from straight people? don’t we deserve to be protected from them, too?

[andyinmiddleearth]

“Kinks that haven’t done material harm” do you even hear yourself? If a cis man were fantasizing about raping lesbians and trans women people would be going apeshit, but because it’s a trans man y’all won’t hold him accountable. I think that’s more transphobic than anything else. I don’t care if Saint hasn’t done “material harm,” he posted those “kinks” on a public internet site for trans women and lesbians to see and be exposed to.

He literally says men are superior in several of his posts, and that he wants to exert power on trans women and lesbians by fucking raping them and forcing them to transition or detransition. His NSFW “kink” posts literally endorse corrective rape for fucks sake! Seeing that shit is literally traumatizing for rape survivors and it encourages violence towards trans women and lesbians. If you hadn’t taken a look at the context someone may see those posts and actually think those are Saint’s opinions (which they most likely are since kinks are ultimately unconscious desires that he has, meaning he’s literally most likely either raped or SAd a trans woman or lesbian). Even though his NSFW account got taken down that shit is vile and you are literally being a rape apologist.

I’m a sexual assault victim and I would appreciate it if y’all would stop defending a potential rapist, and a definite transmisogynist and lesbophobe just because you want to feel special for being oppressed. Oppression isn’t some quirky thing you have and make bigoted terms for when you already have a term for what happens to us (it’s called transphobia. Transmisandry is not a fucking thing, you just want to play oppression Olympics because you don’t understand that transmisogyny is a real oppression system that doesn’t have an equivalent. Not everything has to be about transmascs, stop centering us around conversations of transphobia because not all trans people are transmasc or AFAB.

Lastly, I’m sorry those things happened to the people in the comments but those are isolated incidents. And again, that’s just transphobia, and guess what? Those experiences are nothing compared to the violence trans women and transfemme people face on a daily basis. As a transmasc person I have never been hate crimed and the most hate and harassment I’ve gotten is either from cis people or from transmeds in the trans community that guess what? Are also transmasc people!!!! Transfemmes historically and will always be the backbone of our community and they are the ones that face the most oppression and violence because femininity (or proximity to it in the case of butch and androgynous transfems) is seen as weak while masculinity is praised. And of course transmascs are oppressed, and we should talk about it but also acknowledge that we don’t even face a fraction of the repercussions transfemme people face, and you going out here and making transphobia all about transmascs erases transfemme and intersex people from discussions about transphobia.

TLDR: Stop trying to divide the trans community and listen to SA victims when we tell you someone is problematic. And yes, trans men are oppressors. It’s a conditional type of oppression of course, because trans men like me that are pre-everything and/or don’t pass don’t have access to it. But if you’re here telling me that a cis-passing trans man that can go through the world in stealth being read as a man has no privilege over trans women then you’re fucking delusional and have no idea of how male privilege or intersectionality works.

a big problem in trans spaces, at least online, is that we've made it so it's pretty socially acceptable to talk about how transmasc can do lateral violence to transfems (which is good!), but we have also decided that it isn't socially acceptable to talk about how transfems can do lateral violence to transmascs (which is bad!). for a healthy community, all parties need to be able to describe how we hurt each other.

[tarajenkins]

Looks like the bads of the Steven Universe fandom are trying to sink their hooks into Overwatch again. Literally the same people--seriously, I get a twitch every time I see a gem name on the OW forums now, or even a Tumblr icon--with the same hypocritical arguments, and the same bullshit tactics.

I was thrilled when Blizzard revealed their mascot character is a lesbian, with a promise of more queer representation to come. It could have been a more minor character, but Tracer! And just look at those cuties go in Reflections! But two voice lines later that tease a ship they don’t like (”Gency”, in this case), and the Tumblr kids are back to sending death threats, collecting dubious “receipts”, and branding the company as--you guessed it --“lesbophobes”.

Over another goddamn fictional ship. Cue the ever-moving goalposts as they try to stick a buzzword on the ship that makes it “problematic”! So, anti-shippers, it’s been a while, let’s hear it. ”Lesbophobia!” You know how you’re trying desperately to convince yourself those chocolate lines were platonic? The same could be said of those lines you swore made Pharmercy canon. It’s interpretation, and it’s open to everyone. Just because you ran with it doesn’t somehow give you dibs on what the creators decide is going to be canon. It’s their creation, contrary to one poster who thought fan work somehow gives them a claim. Your ship may not have made it this time, big shmeal, there is still AU, and there are a hell of a lot more ships in this ocean.

But I gotta say, when Blizzard made the face of the game a lesbian, AND promised there is more queer representation to come (not necessarily lesbian, because you know, there ARE other letters in the acronym, learn to share), it’s a hell of a note you’d try to pull that card. Also, I gotta love how platonic relationships and bisexuality are suddenly your best friends when you’re trying to salvage your ship. When I had bisexual headcanons in Steven Universe, I was just “making excuses to ship with a man”. When my squish had platonic ace headcanons, it was “lesbophobia” because it’s all about the sex, sex, sex, amirite? 

When you anti-shippers do it, though, it’s to save a poor, poor girl from TEH MENS. Reading that biphobia loud and clear, kids, because we’re trash to you, “boring hets”,  whenever we’re with someone who is male aligned. And some of you call US greedy, lmfao. Get stuffed. My sexuality isn’t your escape hatch.

“Well, it’s patient/doctor! That’s a power imbalance!”

....the entire premise of Pharmercy was always the healer/fighter synergy. Like, the ship was quite literally founded on it. Guess that’s problematic too--oh, wait, no, you LIKE that one. “W-well, white savior!” If you really want to go that route, same problem every time Mercy saves Pharah’s ass in your precious fanfics, try again.

“Genji is just a self-insert! Ew!”

Ah yes, I forgot, only you folks are allowed to see a character as a fucking avatar so you can RP/draw/whatever your little personal fantasies. Can you just admit you don’t like the ship and you’re just pulling shit from your ass to try to make people afraid to speak out about it, like you did with Steven Universe? “No I don’t like the ship so it’s wrong and ur a bigot I’m making a callout post on u. :C” Sigh. “I’ll boycott the game!” Excellent! 1) We really, really, REALLY won’t miss you, and 2) You already lost the fucking game anyway.

gg ez wp

[brumabranca-blog]

07/29/19

Last Thursday I took my potential girlfriend on a date. Well, sort of a date, no biggie: the idea was to go for a walk and to have some vine.

When we got to a cafe, she got upset bc waiter said something stupid, started sulking and ended up not ordering anything. We went to another place, I got her a beer, we chatted - everything was fine.

As fine as it can be with a whiny feminist girl who is unable to see anything positive, but still.

We left around 11pm bc I was tired and she has something to do at home. When we were walking to the metro station, I saw a dark dead end and took her there for some saliva exchange.

We headed out, back to the way to the station. Then she tried kissing me on the street.

Don’t get me wrong, I kissed her back, but I wasn’t very happy about it. You see, it’s Moscow, but Moscow’s still in Russia, and Russia is not an LGBT-friendly country. Especially now: a couple of days ago I’d seen several posts about an LGBT-hating group “Pila” (“The Chainsaw”). This group blackmailed and threatened a bunch of well-known LGBT and pro-LGBT folks, and allegedly killed an activist from Saint-Peterburg, Elena Grigorieva. I say “allegedly” bc the murder investigation is still on and nobody can say anything for sure.

I am not a famous LGBT person by all means, but the existence of such group surely made me uncomfortable enough to be uncomfortable during kissing on the fucking street next to the fucking church.

So I stopped her and told her that I’m not comfortable, and she was all like “You’re too shy, you haven’t really accepted yourself”.

OK, fine, miss Huge Fearless Lesbian, let’s go.

So we kept walking. I invited her to my work, which is not crouded at all during this time of the year (read: empty). I specifically asked her to “do something dirty at my work”.

She stopped, looked at me and asked: “You think it’s something dirty? Are you a lesbophobe?”

I was like: WHAT.

I mean, WTF, it was just stupid flirting, nothing more.

OK, fine. We kept on walking and she asked if I’d still like to have sex.

She got in my nerves A LOT this evening, but I still wanted to get some before breaking up with this sexy nut-job, so I said yes.

We agreed on Friday afternoon and went our separate ways.

On Friday she texted me she didn’t have a good feeling about this, so no sex. Basically she dumped me.

WHICH GOT ME VERY ANGRY bc WTF????

...and now she texted me she’s sorry she dumped me. You see, she got scared.

I honestly have no idea what to do.

[mdtwn]

Wow reading a post about how to not be a piece of shit and intentionally mistranslating it into OMG HOW COULD YOU BE SO LESBOPHOBIC ON A POST THAT WAS COMPLETELY NOT ABOUT LESBIANS AT ALL!!!! how original. refreshing. definitely not a poorly thought out silencing tactic that doesn't even remotely address what was being said in the slightest, but still let's you hang out in that comfy lil terf echochamber you made for yourself without all that nasty Thinking business getting you down.

lmao you’re ignorant as hell if you think that the word “terf” hasn’t been egregiously misapplied to things that have nothing to do with 1) trans exclusion and 2) radical feminsm, and that like 90% of the time it’s because of some asshole who hates lesbians because tumblr discourse has deluded y’all into thinking that “cis LGs aren’t oppressed anymore”. 

not to mention that if you actually listened to the bi and trans people that you claim to be speaking for, a lot of them don’t want to be branded with a slur either! imagine that! the lgbt community isn’t a fucking monolith and some of us have unique and nuanced experiences!

but if you want my take on the whole post then here ya go 

“People identifying as queer are typically not cis gays or cis lesbians...  ‘queer’ is our rallying cry. And that’s equally pissing off and terrifying terfs and cis LGs.”

if your understanding is that people don’t want the word queer, a slur, assigned to them without their consent because “it makes them uncomfy :(((” then you need to shut the fuck up. it’s nice that some people are privileged and removed enough from getting slurs hurled at them on the street or by their family members that they can sit there and say that every lgbt person should adopt them and feel comfortable with it, but a lot of us still live in places where being gay/trans is at best socially punishable, and at worst, jeopardizing to our safety and lives. 

inb4 “no one is forcing you to use the word queer!!!”: yes the fuck they are. when LGBT resources are rebranded as queer resources, when lgbt people in history have their specific identity labels stripped away and replaced with a slur, when straight cis people are using the word to refer to me or my friends without even thinking critically about it, it brings back prior trauma. it’s reckless, irresponsible, and ahistorical. 

jesus christ no one would ever force gay men to adopt faggot as an umbrella term for themselves, or lesbians with dyke, or trans people with tranny, because they’re fucking SLURS that were extensively used against us and are still used against us. 

also if queer is, as OP says:

a political and ideological statement, a label asserting an identity distinct from gay and/or traditional gender identities

then why are the evil “cis LGs” being branded with it too? if that word is just for bi and trans people then why is the entire community being forced to adopt it? it’s inconsistent and it makes zero sense. nobody cares about bi and trans peoples’ right to self-identify as queer. plenty of gay men and lesbians have reclaimed their respective slurs to refer to themselves, many even use queer, and that’s perfectly fine. “queer is a slur” and “queer can be reclaimed by individuals” are not mutually exclusive statements.

TLDR: basically that entire post is just OP calling lesbians and gay men “terfs” and baselessly lumping them in with transmisogyninists as a scapegoat for their homophobia and it’s extremely obvious. not to mention it completely ignores the bi and trans people who don’t want the word queer assigned to them.