#are among those who oppose homosexuality in any way

[follfoxes]

Random thought...

Noah's Indian...I wonder how many if those customs his family follows. He has a bunch of siblings so...giant family unit seems to be a priority. I wouldn't be surprised if they stick to other beliefs as well.

And then comes the question of Noah himself and whether he rejects or conforms to those beliefs.

This is just random stuff I think about sometimes lmao- I over-analyze a lot sometimes.

[dontbotherwiththepronunciation]

Hey! If you don't mind sharing, can I ask what surprised you most in the responses you got to the Theon survey? Any trends in fandom opinions that you hadn't expected?

Sorry this took so long! I originally wasn't intending on giving my own opinions on this but I will take this chance so I can rant! Thanks a lot. : )

1. Do you think Theon was sexually repressed before his torture by Ramsay?

This one showed some of the dangers of phrasing and how depending on the words we choose people will have very different reactions. Overall it was one of the most fascinating ones for me to read. One of my favourite things to come out of this simply because of how hilarious the dissonance was.

There is this very common take that has been spread by very popular Theonblogs about pre-torture Theon being sexually repressed (and often in modern aus or more lighthearted takes) a homophobic homosexual and it has always bothered me tremendously. I fully disagree.

Theon comes from the Iron Islands, a place that is more open to less defined gender and sexual roles (Asha and Qarl have their entire gnc-cnc thing going on, Hagen's daughter openly asks Tris and then another Ironborn for sex and there is no social stigma around this, and Victarion (sadly) doesn't really show a lot of concern or disgust at his ironborn raping a young maester), the text implies he has been involved in a threesome with Patrek Mallister (another man), and he doesn't seem to mind taking a more sexually submissive role when having sex with women (Esgred, being Kyra's little spoon). He might even find it more enjoyable if we think of his enthusiasm when interacting with Esgred as opposed to the captain's daughter.

More often than not it seemed to me this entire concept of him being sexually repressed/homophobic homosexual was based more on flanderization than actual text.

So, when I asked "Do you think Theon was sexually repressed before his torture by Ramsay?" (meaning: Do you think ACOK/AGOT/Pre-ASOIAF/Modern AU Theon is sexually repressed?) I expected an abundance of "Yes" and hopefully some argumentation. Instead, what I got was a misunderstanding. Many people, especially throbb shippers, who had previously, when speaking about what they enjoy in their respective ships, talked about some form of sexually repressed/closeted in denial Theon, took the words "Do you think Theon was sexually repressed before his torture by Ramsay?" as "Do you think Ramsay was Theon's sexual awakening?" and holly hell I did not mean that but I love it that their brains went in there! There is some subconscious acknowledgement in there.

The numbers between "Yes" vs "No" almost ended in a tie but it was only because a majority of those who said "no" interpreted the question very differently. I know for a fact a few of them have liked/reblogged sexually repressed Theon takes but then were almost outrageous about what they thought I implied and fully defended a sexually comfortable non-repressed pre-torture Theon. One of them even cursed me for what they thought I was hinting at. Very fun. Not quite a piss on the poor situation but still very enjoyable.

2. Ships

One of the dangers of doing these type of projects and allowing people anonymity is that many of them will forsake decency in order to spill out things without any real nuisance or consideration for others.

I encountered three types of reactions when it came to thoughts on the ship you like engaging with the least.

a) A short and brief "It makes me uncomfortable/It's uninteresting to me/It just irks me the wrong way, no hate to the shippers" or something among those lines

b) A relatively long analysis explaining to me in detail why, often with well-founded criticism that doesn't feel malicious or born out of petty competition: "Most of the fanwork focusing on it is very pro-Stark and I dislike how Robb is whitewashed / The way Ramsay's abuse is framed by the fans feels very divergent from the canon dynamic once they allow Theon enough agency to give consent / Book Theonsa barely exists, it's just show Theonsa and thus it often implies things about Theon's redemption arc that I don't agree with / I think adding romantic undertones to his relationship with Jeyne diminishes the selflessness of him rescuing her / Jon and him can mainly bond over things that are holding them back in their development and identity arcs, the wish to be a Stark, so I wouldn't want their relationship to become very intimate."

c) The dreaded and hateful "People who like [insert ship] are [insert insult] and I wish they would [insert harmful action]" often based on very hypocritical and not well thought argumentation. "How dare you ship him with a child?!" said by person who also ships him with a child. "That relationship could never be consensual because of the power imbalance" said by person who also ship him with someone who clearly holds power over him. "TaKe OfF tHe StArK GoGgLeS!" said by person who is wearing them too. Or the less hypocritical but equally disrespectful in the sense that it tries to limit interpretations and engagement with more niche parts of the fandom "Why'd you ship him with [insert ship] when [insert more popular ship] is right there?!"

And to be honest, I loved getting the b) variation! It was the rarest one, with sadly the c) variation being the most common but there was still a lot more of it than I expected there would be and it was so fun! Even when I didn't agree with an argument, or when it went against one of my ships (Out of the 5 options I listed in the survey the only ones I actively search for are Greysnow and Theyne, I occasionally go to thramsay but rarely to "shippy" works because I am only interested in it as pure horror, and usually I feel uncomfortable by the Stark involving ones so I avoid them) getting to interact with friendly criticism instead of straight up hate was so refreshing and oddly exciting. Like, yes! Give me your insight!

The examples I listed on the b) option are all paraphrased opinions that were submitted and the only one I disagree on is the Greysnow one, but even so it was explained so respectfully and without this sense of superiority and self-righteousness of "I understand the character and story better than those shippers!" so it still felt like something worth reading.

Happily surprised to see how some saw the window for complaints and took the opportunity to give actual complaints.

I block people for the mildest annoying thing they do and part of me regrets it because of the echo chamber I'm building around myself, but I think we should also be able to differentiate between "Hate" and criticism. Every now and then I remember that post on "I like being a hater" and no! I don't think most people like being haters, but when fair and valid concerns get dismissed as "hate" it becomes frustrating. Option c) is hate. Option b) is interesting and often constructive!

And the opposite also holds!

Throbb specifically is a ship I never understood the appeal of and disliked engaging with but a few of the responses explaining why people enjoy it opened my eyes about it. They offered perspectives I hadn't considered in the past and to some extent they made me more tolerant.

Some examples (including things I don't really agree with but still found insightful and interesting):

I only mildly dabble in shipping in asoiaf at all, however Throbb Is nice as when its done well It tends to have a lot of what I like (kidfic, canon divergences with some political element and happening around the early ACOK node, very specific hurt comfort dynamics, role reversals (enjoy Robb Is the one who had to experience Ramsay AUs even) exploration of the cultural/identity issues through conflicing loyalty etc . It rigorously has to be by people who love Theon better than Robb though

I'm someone where I will take whatever I can get tbh. All of the above. I do really enjoy stories where Robb is a darker character though, and relishes in the power he holds over Theon. Also just like playing with the theme of the Starks being wolves? And how the Ironborn were called like sea wolves by those in the riverlands and westerlands. It's very fun. I also do indulge in modern AUs where Theon is an unofficial member of the Starks. It's just very comfy. I like it less-so in canon fics because I think it very much writes off Ironborn culture in place of Northern culture. I am picky with them though because some of them are very much in the lane of "the Starks can do no wrong" and nope, the Starks can and have.

I am truly here for literally any Theon ship and they all appeal to me in different ways for different reasons. Robb and Theon - Personally I think it's really interesting how Robb is upheld as this very honourable gentleman-type but he never calls out Theon on his horrible treatment of women or other uncouth behaviour and it's suggested he actually kind of admires him for it? It gives me the impression that Robb lives vicariously through Theon a little bit and I'm fascinated by the idea of them being devoted to each other but also jealous of each other? We never see Robb's POV in the books but I think he's interesting to view through a lens of a young guy with an immense amount of pressure and responsibility on his shoulders (even before Ned dies he has the responsibility of being heir and the pressure to live up to the Stark name). I imagine that Theon is one of the few people Robb felt he could be himself around without any pressure to be respectable or honourable. He probably craves the relative freedom Theon has whole Theon longs for the status and respect that Robb has. It's an interesting dynamic! Also there's the fact that Robb is literally the only person who likes Theon and trusts him when no one else does which makes it even more heartbreaking when he betrays him. 

This last sentence I marked on blue was so captivating because it opened a can of worms regarding ACOK-ASOS Robb and how much he seems to be imitating Theon's own (failed) leadership, which, yes, we have tons of meta exploring their similitudes but combined with the "Theon treats women horribly" take (in my opinion, yes but not much worse that the rest of men in the story) makes me think of Robb's dubiously consensual relationship with Jeyne W after he and his army take over her castle and Theon having Kyra be brought to him after he takes Winterfell (and a few weeks later raping her). Interesting things to dwell on.

3. (Anti) Sansa-Dany (Stan)

Something that surprised me positively was that the division between Anti-Sansa/Anti-Dany was a lot less present than I usually perceived it to be. The majority was sympathetic to both without seeing one as a villain and the other as a hero. There were still more Sansa stans than Dany stans but it was much less extreme than I thought. I wonder if this is tied to the show fandom dying and people being more aware about thematic and textual similitudes between Dany & Theon and Sansa & Dany now that the show-made dynamics have been fading. People have been slowly realising that Theon being devoted to a Stark might not be the hill we want him to die on and that Daenerys' ambition for the throne is similarly to Theon also motivated by a deep longing for home.

There is still a preference for Sansa but the animosity for Dany was much less than I expected and that made me very happy. Very proud of the Theon fandom for this!

Thanks for asking again. It's very nice of you to show interest and I hope this hasn't ben very disappointing.

[laundryandtaxes]

healthliberationnow (.) com/2022/04/02/leaked-audio-confirms-genspect-director-as-anti-trans-conversion-therapist-targeting-youth/ how do you reconcile this when listening? I feel like there’s nowhere for me to go as someone who doesn’t think my dysphoria is proof of an innate gender identity but also doesn’t support debunked pseudoscience used to hurt people like AGP/ROGD. I feel really hopeless.

I think there's very little basis for tossing AGP and ROGD as concepts into the junk bin as "debunked pseudoscience," though I think the place of each in the discussions is unnecessarily and suspiciously large in a way that does imply really troubling things to me- a baseline discomfort with male gender nonconformity on the one hand such that any interaction between a person's sexual orientation and their day to day behavior is cast not just as fetishim but a violent fetishism even though both heterosexual and homosexual people's daily behavior is obviously impacted by their sexual orientation, and a baseline discomfort on the other with the question of why children who are NOT easily sorted into the easy peasy ROGD category, who were very gender nonconforming children who are likely to grow into very gender nonconforming adults, would be so uncomfortable in their bodies that they would be dreaming of not having them. To be clear, I think we probably agree that the terms are not "scientific;" that is to say, I don't think they speak to some natural, non-social truth. I think they are terms (frankly, like "gender dysphoria") that human beings invented to describe human phenomena that are experienced by real human beings in ways that the affected will tell you deeply impact their lives, and that they create frameworks that prove themselves very useful for understanding those phenomena. For ROGD in particular, I think people who find it to be an offensive proposition that teenaged girls would spread a form of expressing emotional distress among themselves need to explain why they find that proposition offensive in and of itself because I've seen absolutely 0 good reasons to make that jump myself, and secondly they need to offer up their alternative explanation for the rapid rise in non-female identification among girls and young women, and in order for me to find that alternative explanation as compelling it would need to account for things ROGD accounts for like social pressure to be associated with marginalized people, and the outright swap from mostly male to mostly female patients in gender clinics, and the phenomenon of entire friend groups identifying as nonbinary one by one.

As for Stella O'Malley's opposition to pediatric medical transition, firstly it doesn't bother me because I share it, but secondly it's not anything close to a secret that she generally opposes the medicalization of gendered distress in children. I am pretty sure it's why the podcast began. But even if I had really major reservations about that, I would very possibly still really enjoy the podcast, because a podcast is not "a place for me to go," it's a piece of media in which ideas that I personally find very interesting and meaningful and relevant are discussed. And I think that parasocial relationships and the cultural acceptance of them have helped to land us culturally where we are right now, where we can't even ask questions or discuss these things in public without being shouted down by people who don't even bother to offer up their own ideas. I really really enjoy the podcast, and I have some admiration for Sasha in particular, but I don't have a personal relationship with either person, I enjoy the thing they created because I find the discussions interesting and I regularly find myself in disagreement and agreement with these two women, who are perfect strangers to me. I am also a firearms enthusiast and I regularly watch videos or take classes or passingly discuss hobbies with on the internet people whose opinions on any number of things I would likely find absolutely abhorrent if I approached every interaction like an interaction with my best friend in the whole world.

[hawkinsschoolcounselor]

Heteronormativity and its impact on Stranger Things

While taking a walk today, I got to thinking about how romantic relationships are handled on TV and in movies. It generally comes down to the basic formula of the male and female leads getting romantically linked, regardless of any actual romantic building. We just expect a man and a woman who meet to have some degree of romantic attraction to each other. We see it all the time in real life. How many of you have had friends or relatives who see boy and girl toddlers interacting and begin to say things like “He’ll be a real heartbreaker.” or “Oh, I hear wedding bells.” I imagine many of us who oppose the idea of heteronormativity have fallen into this behavior as well.

We simply have been conditioned to expect boys and girls to pair off. Joyce and Hopper had a fan following for their relationship as early as season 1, despite there not being much to go on until season 2. We knew they were familiar with each other, but there wasn’t really much in the way of romantic undertones. Still, fans started to pair them together. Mike and El’s fan base acted like they were the best couple in the history of fiction, even though they were 12 and only knew each other for a week. There were even people who shipped Will with Jennifer Hayes. Why? Because she cried at his funeral. That’s it. That’s all they needed.

Strong relationships between same-sex pairs end up being written off as mere friendship and/or adoration. Even worse, terrible same-sex relationships take off as popular pairings. Look at Steve and Billy. There’s no reason for those two to be romantically linked, but it’s one of the most popular pairs in the fandom. It reeks of a horrible concept of homosexuality, one characterized by animalistic attraction and a lack of genuine affection. This all harkens back to old ideas of gay people: that they are sexual deviants, immoral, primal. There’s still this idea in even progressive culture that sees the heterosexual couple as the ideal, and the homosexual couple as inferior. The better among those who think this way at least understand it is not a good mindset to have, but it still leaks, subconsciously or not, its way into popular culture.

Had Will been a girl, there’s no question as to whether his relationship with Mike would be seen as romantic. There’d be a full-fledged ship war going on. We’d have Team Will vs Team El. I realize that I have my own biases in this, but I didn’t start seeing Mike and Will romantically because I wanted them to get together. I started wanting them to get together because I was reading that there was something going on between them. Just close your eyes and imagine these scenes with a female actor playing Will:

Mike becomes intensely worried after Will disappears and goes searching for her despite the growing danger.

Mike breaks down in tears when Will’s (fake) body is pulled from the quarry. He tries to console himself by looking through the drawings she had given him.

Mike is the only one awake in the hospital waiting room, and the first to rush to Will’s side when she wakes up.

Mike dotes on Will during the entirely of Season 2. He’s constantly in tune with her emotional needs.

Will trusts Mike, and Mike alone, with what is going on with her. Mike tells her that if they’re both going crazy, then they’ll go crazy together. Will smiles and says, “yeah, crazy together.”

Mike becomes Will’s primary source of comfort throughout the season. He stays by her side, making use of a lot of physical contact. 

Despite the Mindflayer eating into Will’s memory, she still remembers who Mike is. Mike smiles a bit bashfully in response.

Mike tearfully recollects meeting Will in an attempt to break through to her. Will starts off staring blankly at him, as she did with Joyce and Jonathan, but by the end of Mike’s story her eyes are glassy and her mouth is trembling.

When a boy walks up and asks Zombie Girl if she wants to dance, Will looks over at Mike briefly before going off at his urging. Mike suddenly looks stunned and then upset.

That summer, when Mike meets Will, Max, and Lucas for a movie, Mike sits with Will a row apart from Max and Lucas. He notices when Will sense the Mindflayer, asking her if she’s ok.

When Mike bails on the party to go off and make out with El, Will turns away with a sad look on her face.

In fact, everytime Mike makes a display of his feelings for El, Will looks sad.

When Mike and Will fight, and Mike asks if Will really expected things their relationship to stay the same forever, Will tearfully says she did. Mike looks sad as she bikes away from him. He chases after her in the rain to apologize.

As Will sits in Castle Byers, she looks around at pictures of her and Mike and recollects him telling a campaign. She calls herself stupid and proceeds to destroy everything.

Before she moves away, Will packs up her D&D set to donate to Erica. Mike nervously asks what she’s doing, but Will reassures him that she’ll just use his set when she comes back. She tells Mike it’s not possible for her to find a new party. They smile at each other.

This would be a blatant “Will they or won’t they?” situation if Will were a girl. There would be no shock that Will had feelings for Mike or that Mike had feelings for Will if it were to be revealed explicitly. Everyone would already have been waiting for it, regardless of who they wanted Mike to end up with. There would be no cries of pandering or sexualization of children. Fans wouldn’t be threatening to burn merchandise or boycott the show.

I know there’s no chance that anyone associated with the show will ever read this. I know that I probably shouldn’t get so worked up about the love lives of fictional teenagers. Still, the entire situation, and the fact that most fans insist Mike and Will are just friends, reeks of heteronormativity. It’s nothing more than a low-grade homophobia. It pisses me off. This mindset is one of the last obstacles to same-sex couples being truly accepted. Stranger Things has a real opportunity to strike a blow against it, but I worry that it won’t. The buildup is genuinely all there, we are not delusional, but will they pull the trigger on it?  I’ve grown to be pessimistic about such things. I hope I’m proven wrong.

[ohnobjyx]

Would it be that impossible for dd and gg to come out as a couple (provided they respected censorship and didn't talk about it with the media)? I read the other day that homosexuality is not illegal in China, just talking about it and showing in the media, so could not someone as brave and crazy as dd attempt to come out outside of the media? after all they are the first 3 shipped real couples in china, they do have support. Coming out willingly would also save them from being eventually outed..

Hi, anon! (*this blogger cracks her neck and gets ready*) Let’s get into it!

Disclaimer: fake fake fake. Why would you think that we believe in bjyx?

Preface: this post might not be exactly a controversial opinion, since I think many will have the same one. However, it’s alright to disagree: we all have our own perception of the matter, which is coloured by our own experiences (let’s just say that an absolute objective view is difficult). I present here with the most objective post (at least in terms of data and facts) I could write.

Oh, and you all might have noticed, but being concise is not my forte. I tend to digress.

First of all, I assume that the concept of “coming out outside of the media” means that they could have told just close friends and family, without announcing it to the media.

But how would we know that they have done it? (and I don’t mean we should know for sure, ofc). For all we know, they may have already done this, and, from my pov, they probably have. Without entering in “fake” rumours:

TTXS bros know something (repeating myself for the nth time). From the way DZW jumps in whenever it remotely looks like dd is slipping up, how WH poses his questions, how QF teases him. It all seems references to a real, tangible thing, instead of baseless friendly teasing. It’s also very interesting that they have stopped their matchmaking mission and have instead started to defend why dd is “single”.

Their parents are their cover. Even if dd parents didn’t watch TTXS, wouldn’t someone else watch it and ask them about it? Wouldn’t they wonder about the supposed clothes that dd sends home, the medicine, the market stroll? Maybe I’m just projecting, but I wouldn’t use my parents as a shield if they weren’t aware of the situation behind it, because I’d be subjected to their questioning later. That’s why, unless I wanted to tell them or I had already told them, I wouldn’t use my parents as an excuse. So, once is alright, but dd has done it several times, and that, for me, means that his parents know.

That’s what I would consider “coming outside the media”. Of course, this doesn’t involve us fans, and it’s their decision, of which we probably will never hear about (or, at least, not soon, and that’s fine!). 

In my opinion, it’s also the best course of action, especially with all the rumours that are always circulating about them. It wouldn’t be a “brave and crazy” course of action, but rather the most sensible and rational, since it’s the best way to avoid misunderstandings with your friends and family. It’s also considerate for his friends at work, just so they know what to expect when they are on stage and it allows them to understand dd’s reactions.

(Again, we are talking about dd because that’s who anon asked about. I think gg’s circle is less close to him, so it may not be the case with him, but I don’t know enough to say what would happen).

Just let’s suppose his TTXS bros didn’t know anything and just kept trying to act as matchmakers for dd. That’s the kind of situation that’s bound to be uncomfortable for everyone because dd isn’t the kind of person who’d lie (and he doesn’t fast enough to improptu questions). 

The second thing I wanted to talk about is their fans’ support. I want to talk about numbers.

I’m going to explain why I only take the c-fans data as reference. We int fans don’t really count, because we don’t affect their careers directly, as c-fans do. Of course, our support is very useful in showing how many people are rooting for them, like what happened when Roseonly’s livestream with gg was live. And I like to think that they would feel better knowing that there are a lot of people in Chn and overseas that support them and whatever there is between them.

So int-fans do contribute to give more views and likes to their Roseonly livestream (if they can access it, which isn’t always the case), but they won’t buy the roses and impact with real money, so to say.

We don’t really participate in their endorsements, many won’t stay long enough to watch more dramas from them (and I do understand that the lack of eng subs is the main problem), and many don’t/can’t/don’t know how to push them up in the charts. We’ve talked before about how the c-ent industry doesn’t really need the int audience to make a lot of money, and to be highly profitable, and it still applies in a smaller case, like a single idol. 

That’s why I think that in matters of real, tangible fan support, c-fans still make a bigger percentage (around 80-90%) of their support.

So, as of now, there are 3 supertopics in w/ibo that features gg/dd (let’s leave the difference in supertopics for another day, but I don’t support the discussion about people’s sex life, thanks for your understanding):

BJYX. The largest supertopic (top 1) with a wide margin from the others. It has 2.570.000 fans.

ZSWW. It’s the number 5 in the CP supertopics, with 910.000 fans.

LXFY. The number 23 in the CP supertopics with 590.000 fans.

All of them added make 4.070.000 fans. But we have to take into account the overlapping in these three supertopics: many people (like me) are following the three supertopics at the same time. That’s why, in a not scientific way, I’m guessing that those 4.070.000 come to around 4.000.000 once you take out the people that are following the three at the same time.

Even 4 million people is still a huge number of people: that’s more people than the population of the capital of my country, and one tenth of the total census here.

Yet, in China, it means 4 out of every 1400, which translates into 0′003%. It’s also from a very specific demographic (mainly female and young). Of course, it doesn’t mean that they won’t get support from other people if it ever got out, but they can’t know what would happen then for sure.

It means that, in actual 3D world, there are a lot of people who don’t know about their CP. I read the other day some tumblr blogger saying that “we bxg are in our own little bubble, not that many people know about their cp” (was that you, @jcisthebestfightme?) which I agree a lot with. I mean, my w/ibo account and tumblr is filled with bjyx/yizhan, so much that it’s easy to forget that I arranged it to be like this, but that the majority of the people don’t receive so much info about them, nor they analyze their every move like we do.

The only thing they can know for sure is what general population thinks about same sex relationships.

In a recent poll I saw, with thousands of answers about what netizens thought of the legalization of same sex marriage in Taiwan, the supporting votes didn’t get to 50%. In Taiwan, public opinion was like this around the time same sex marriage was legalized:

An opinion poll conducted in November 2016 by the Kuomintang found that 52% of the Taiwanese population supported same-sex marriage, while 43% were opposed. Another poll commissioned that same month found similar numbers: 55% in support, and 45% in opposition. Support was higher among 20–29-year-olds (80%), but decreased significantly with age. (Wikipedia)

(I just want to say, I can’t wait for the younger generations to take over).

More data: the public stance in China could be described as: “no approval, no disapproval, no promotion”, and the public opinion is becoming more and more tolerant, but there’s still a deep-set homophobia, as in only 5% of the lgbt people comes out completely (around 20% comes out to their family), and around 80% of gay men are married to women due to social and family pressure (ofc, these data is from a few years ago, and new polls and surveys are needed, but don’t expect them to carry out a wide-range survey about this nor I think the situation has changed drastically).

In my opinion, society is slowly taking more steps towards tolerance first and acceptance second. One of their best achievement was the lgbt community and many netizens’ refusal to allow w/ibo to instate a ban on content related to homosexuality, which led to w/ibo actually reversing its decision and stop banning that content in less than 3 days.

However, the fact that a lot of people express their support doesn’t take away the truth of a lot of people openly opposing it (let’s remember that there weren’t so many antis to start with in 2/27, but its effects were undeniably large and unjust).

(If any of you read more data about lgbt rights in China, please remember that Hong Kong receives a lot more Western influence, and that public opinion in HK does not represent the actual situation in mainland Chn. Ofc, because they’re more open to lgbt, there are also more data and polls carried out in HK, so a lot of info is HK based).

Leaving this kind of data aside, let’s take another matter of numbers. While they have in total 4 million fans in the supertopics, dd has as of now 35,400,000 fans following him on w/ibo and gg has 26,690,000 fans.

One thing I’m sure they are aware of is the discussion that arises from time to time between the solo fans and the bxg. Another thing they must be aware of, specially dd, is that their fanbase has a lot of females who are their fans, not just because of their talent, but also because they’re single and therefore they can fantasize about being with them.

All in all, even though a lot of people support them, there would be also quite a number of “disappointed” people, with the danger of them becoming antis.

So while I do think they appreciate it, and leave clues specifically for us, and dd goes as far as interacting with bxg, I also feel that gg and dd might not see widespread support, enough so they’d feel comfortable coming out completely with the current public stance on homosexual relationships in Chn.

(And again, from my pov, they aren’t in the closet with their family and friends).

And last, but not least, does “coming out respecting the censorship and not talking about it with the media” mean that it would be known by the general public, or, at least, their fans (in a very hypothetic case, since I don’t know how this could be achieved)? Because then, even if they didn’t talk about it with the media, it would be as good as coming out publicly.

In an idol’s life there’s no “private” and “public”. There’s only “public” and “secret” (and by secret I mean things they “hide” in public/don’t talk about, even though people next to them might know about it). The line between public and private is very very blurred in the c-ent industry.

I always remember the case of an actor who had an affair. Because of his affair (he was married and had a son), he lost endorsements, he was taken out of tv programs and literally erased from filmed episodes. The things he did in private affected very directly his job (I don’t approve of the affair, but the consequences it had surprised me a lot). 

So, while I do think that gg and dd are getting bolder with time, when they were both very startled by the “you’d lose your job if you were in a relationship” phrase, the fear was real and palpable. However, I’m aware that that was their stance a year ago, and that a lot of things have changed (heck, we’ve gone through a pandemic, something I couldn’t have imagined a year ago), so I’m going to observe how they act from now.

That’s why, “coming out willingly would also save them from being eventually outed..” is true, but it’s also true that it would push them into a storm I’m not sure they’d come out completely unscathed. And it may be selfish, but I don’t want them to be the ones who test the public’s tolerance to gay idols.

I think I’m missing my point, so I’ll spell it out: if they want to come out, I’ll support them with everything I have, as I think many fans will do. If they ever prove us wrong dating another person, be it male or female, I’ll support them as a fan too. But I would like any action they take to be decided by them, instead of pressed by fans who just want a confirmation at any cost.

I’ve seen people saying that if they were really together, they should be “honest” with themselves and the audience and come out publicly. In my opinion, it’s easy to judge when you’re not the one who might lose something if you take a step in the wrong direction, and it’s not your income and your job in the line.

I’m sure (reminding you all that I believe that bjyxszd) that they’d come out completely if possible. I’m also sure that they have consulted with managers and public relations experts (and their team would have talked with them about it even if gg and dd didn’t bring it up). Therefore, I strongly believe they are doing what they think is better at the time being. 

To sum up: I’ll support whatever they do, but I don’t want others to push them to do things they don’t want/aren’t prepared to do. They are already between a rock and a hard place, so whatever they do with their relationship is absolutely their call.

So, anon, I hope I have answered you, but I leave here a short summary for you in the case the info was too scattered for you:

Would it be that impossible for dd and gg to come out as a couple (provided they respected censorship and didn't talk about it with the media)? I read the other day that homosexuality is not illegal in China, just talking about it and showing in the media, so could not someone as brave and crazy as dd attempt to come out outside of the media?

They might have come out to friends and family, and, based on dd’s interactions with the people around him and the words he has said, I do believe he has. Because gg is also an honest, sensible person, I think he might have done the same.

after all they are the first 3 shipped real couples in china, they do have support 

Chn is a big country. That means that in terms of public support, sometimes numbers that would be astronomically high in other countries, is not so much in Chn. Translating numbers into percentage, a 1% means 14 million people.

So it’s true that they have a lot of people supporting them, of course. 2 million people is a lot of people, especially considering that many don’t know about them. But when you have to take into account the general public (because it’d be a scandal), since their fans aren’t the only ones interacting with them, it’s still a low number.

Coming out willingly would also save them from being eventually outed.. 

That’s true in the case of family and friends. But if you’re talking about being outed in the media, that’s not possible. Known by the fans = Public.

And remember that in this case, the media wouldn’t talk about them, since talking about homosexuality in the media is prohibited. The problem would come from within the industry and the antis.

[houroftheantichristwolf]

Lesbian Politicization

This was published 1990 in a book called Dykes-Loving-Dykes: Dyke Separatist Politics for Lesbians Only and illustrates exactly the long-standing issue with women appropriating lesbianism, using their political beliefs to try to define female homosexual existence in relation to opposing men. The agenda, of course, is to say fuck males and to fight the ever elusive and ever changing culture of patriarchy. 

That’s 100% relevant and helpful for actual homosexual females....not. 

I’ll make this short though, this is just to show how feminists been appropriating lesbians and applying their values to lesbian existence.

In the 1980’s, a decade of reactionary politics, femininity became an accepted value among many Lesbians. Even many politically radical Lesbians, who I would most expect to support Lesbian self-love and self-respect, who usually call male bullshit for what it is, began to openly admire feminine ways of dressing and acting. Femininity! A patriarchal hype if there ever was one.

Lesbians who didn’t look the way you personally think is more useful for your cause probably didn’t care to make a political statement out of their existence. The point of lesbians seeking lesbian communities is to find other lesbians - with the exception of those who WANTED to seek out political radical lesbian communities. That is not an inherent aspect of our existence, and to be honest, it’s not even a large part of it as women appropriating lesbians usually populated those communities. Here is a recap of the origins of radical “lesbian” separatism: *** [ In the late 70s a group of lesbians in Leeds, known as revolutionary feminists (RFs), made a controversial move that resonated loudly for me and many other women. They began calling for all feminists to embrace lesbianism. Appealing to their heterosexual sisters to get rid of men “from your beds and your heads”, they started a debate, which reached its height in 1981 with the publication of an infamous booklet, Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism (LYE). In this, the RFs wrote that, “all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women. It’s no surprise that the booklet was so controversial. “We think serious feminists have no choice but to abandon heterosexuality,” it reads. “Only in the system of oppression that is male supremacy does the oppressor actually invade and colonise the interior of the body of the oppressed.” https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights “Political lesbianism originated in the late 1960s among second wave radical feminists as a way to fight sexism and compulsory heterosexuality. Sheila Jeffreys helped to develop the concept when she co-wrote “Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism”[3] with the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group. They argued that women should abandon support of heterosexuality and stop sleeping with men, while encouraging women to rid men “from your beds and your heads.”[4] Heterosexual behavior is seen as the basic unit of the patriarchy’s political structure, lesbians who reject heterosexual behavior therefore disrupt the established political system.[5]Ti-Grace Atkinson, a radical feminist who helped to found the group The Feminists, is attributed with the phrase that embodies the movement: ‘Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.’[6]” ] ***

Lesbians’ acceptance of anything “feminine” is part of the weakening of Lesbian politics—a Lesbian parallel to the right-wing trend of het politics.

LOL good. Being a lesbian does not mean representing anything political. Also what the fuck? This is where queer activists got their penchant for calling lesbians Nazis lol. Where’s that meme that’s like, anyone I don’t like is a Nazi? lol great homophobia, Queen/dumbass.

Those Lesbians who act out the feminine model and claim it’s a contribution to Lesbian culture, a flowering forth of their “real selves,” are of course Fems

So feminine lesbians’ real selves aren’t acceptable within your framework because they trigger your contempt of gender presentation that you yourself do not have to take part of? But your “real self” - a non-lesbian pretending to be a lesbian - is commendable because you want other lesbians to act and look exactly how you do which supposedly is off-putting to patriarchy AKA you use our sexual orientation to say fuck you to men? I think not. 

The het media is full of stories about the het feminist who “realizes that she doesn’t have to give up being a woman to be a success in life,” who “regrets having tried to be like a man,” and is now “rediscovering the excitement of feminine seductiveness, the fun of dressing up in high heels, make-up and skirts, and her deep need for the joys of motherhood.”

“Realizes she doesn’t have to give up being a woman to be a success in life”; “and her deep need for the joys of motherhood.” So you understand femininity = heterosexuality. This is the 80s/90s, I wonder what her opinion is now that ‘femininity’ has changed: heterosexual women wear gym clothes, lift weights, have short hair, wear no make up or minimal make up etc., and men love it. And yet I see feminists also say that heterosexual women who are like this are still trying to please men and so are still feminine even though what they’re doing and how they’re looking is not “feminine” according to the original perception. So what’s the truth about ‘femininity?’ It’s equating it to anything that heterosexual men find appealing, which changes constantly. You really want lesbians to spend time to think about how to be as unappealing to males as possible when they’re not even relevant and so don’t dominate our every thought and action (unlike you maybe because you’re not homosexual and so have to try harder?)? Please, get real.

She’s a threat to the Big Lie of “feminine woman,” and so men and their women collaborators make up all kinds of ridiculous, hateful fictions to explain away her existence. The pressure is meant to humiliate and bully her into accepting femininity, and it must put her through soul-shaking self-doubt, even if she knows other Butches. 

While I do know this happens, the reason behind that is homophobia 100%, being “masculine” appearing is a red marker of homosexuality. The threat is the big lie of heterosexuality. “Feminine” lesbians were assaulted when with their partners or if found out that they are indeed homosexual, they were just less of an obvious target than “masculine” women. It’s not Oppression Olympics, this should be used to understand hate crimes against homosexual women.

Meanwhile, girls who accept femininity—the vast majority, unfortunately—are accepted as “real girls” and encouraged to take pride in their feminine ways. There are degrees of femininity, of course. Some Fem girls accept the complete emaciated drag queen sex-object ideal while others take on just enough feminine identity to still be accepted as real girls.

“Real girls.” I was definitely acknowledged as a “real girl” when I was still  more “unfeminine” in my appearance and not out than I am right now being out. What degree of ‘femininity’ am I considered to exhibit now according to feminist praxis, who knows. Either way, my relatives disagree that any amount of femininity would make me a ‘normal’ female. My mother was sad toward the end of her life because she felt conflicted that I wasn’t a ‘real’ female. You know what would’ve changed her perception? Being with a man and having kids.

It means spending time, energy and money on nail polish, perfume, hair-do’s, dresses, diets, body-shaping exercises, poses and games; fantasizing  yourself as the center of sexual attention, making everything into a sexual game, getting yourself further and further away from female reality, from real female Lesbian power. It means identifying more and more with het values and choosing to see yourself through men’s eyes.

I thought femininity was clothes, makeup and seeking to attract men. Then it’s wanting a family and diet and exercise, which aren’t exclusive to heterosexual men and women. But because heterosexual males find that appealing in their lives it’s considered feminine? So, again, “femininity” is anything heterosexual males find appealing in females. Got it. And that answers my question about what her thoughts probably are on contemporary “femininity.” 

Most importantly, choosing to be an obvious Lesbian is about living with integrity. A Butch’s choice to resist femininity is the choice of a female who’s being true to herself, choosing to be as alive to her female self as possible, regardless of the punishments inflicted on her as a result. I find in that resistance a key to Dyke power, Dyke beauty and Dyke love.

A lesbian being an actual lesbian - not pretending to be one or basing her existence on her capability to spite heterosexual males and females - and living her damn life is living in integrity period.  Associating a lesbian’s life with political intent and political values has no integrity, is manipulative and is suspect as hell.

[d3nt4l-d4m4g3]

Consider: The effeminists

Effeminist—(historical) A member of a male homosexual movement opposing prejudices against effeminate behaviour.  —Wikipedia

The next quote is from Jeanne Cordova’s When We Were Outlaws. She was a major figure in the lesbian feminist movement and created the most prominent lesbian newspaper of the time, The Lesbian Tide. This part of her autobiography is set when the lesbians employeed at the gay center (who created some of the first health care programs for women alcoholics, btw)  are shoved out of power. Most of the gay male employees at the GCSC were fine with what was clearly manipulative and misogynistic bullshit that would disempower an entire neighborhood of poor, lower-class women. However, one group of men stood by the lesbians:

“In recent weeks a handful of the gay male employees [at the Gay Community Services Center] had begun to support us, calling themselves “effeminists,” a term used by radical left wing of the gay movement. Effeminists glorified in the name “gay faeries” and understood that the straight world mocked them because they as (f-slur)  identified with women. They championed feminist principles like lesbian equality in the gay movement. They were usually feminine, rather than butch gay men, and they became our natural allies.” (Cordova 97-98)

The Effeminists’ 1973 Manifesto is below, transcribed from this archive:

The Effeminist Manifesto (1973) Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, Kenneth Pitchford

We, the undersigned Effeminists of Double-F hereby invite all like-minded men to join with us in making our declaration of independence from Gay Liberation and all other Male-Ideologies by unalterably asserting our stand of revolutionary commitment to the following Thirteen Principles that form the quintessential substance of our politics:

       On the oppression of women. 1. SEXISM. All women are oppressed by all men, including ourselves. This systematic oppression is called sexism. 2. MALE SUPREMACY. Sexism itself is the product of male supremacy, which produces all other forms of oppression that patriarchal societies exhibit: racism, classism, ageism, economic exploitation, ecological imbalance. 3. GYNARCHISM. Only that revolution which strikes at the root of all oppression can end any and all of its forms. That is why we are gynarchists; that is, we are among those who believe that women will seize power from the patriarchy and, thereby, totally change life on this planet as we know it. 4. WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP. Exactly how women will go about seizing power is no business of ours, being men. But as effeminate men oppressed by masculinist standards, we ourselves have a stake in the destruction of the patriarchy, and thus we must struggle with the dilemma of being partisans – as effeminists – of a revolution opposed to us – as men. To conceal our partisanship and remain inactive for fear of women’s leadership or to tamper with questions which women will decide would be no less despicable. Therefore, we have a duty to take sides, to struggle to change ourselves, to act.

       On the oppression of effeminate men. 5. MASCULINISM. Faggots and all effeminate men are oppressed by the patriarchy’s systematic enforcement of masculinist standards, whether these standards are expressed as physical, mental, emotional, or sexual stereotypes of what is desirable in a man. 6. EFFEMINISM. Our purpose is to urge all such men as ourselves (whether celibate, homosexual, or heterosexual) to become traitors to the class of men by uniting in a movement of Revolutionary Effeminism so that collectively we can struggle to change ourselves from non-masculinists into anti-masculinists and begin attacking those aspects of the patriarchal system that most directly oppress us. 7. PREVIOUS MALE-IDEOLOGIES. Three previous attempts by men to create a politics of fighting oppression have failed because of their incomplete analysis: the Male Left, Male Liberation, and Gay Liberation. These and other formations, such as sexual libertarianism and the counter-culture, are all tactics for preserving power in men’s hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a carry-over from one or more of these earlier ideologies – the damaging combination of ultra-egalitarianism, anti-leadership, anti-technology, and downward mobility. All are based on a politics of guilt and a hypocritical attitude towards power which prevents us from developing skills urgently needed in our struggle and which confuses the competence needed for revolutionary work with the careerism of those who seek personal accommodation within the patriarchal system. 8. COLLABORATORS AND CAMP FOLLOWERS. Even we effeminate men are given an option by the patriarchy: to become collaborators in the task of keeping women in their place. Faggots, especially, are offered a subculture by the patriarchy which is designed to keep us oppressed and also increase the oppression of women. This subculture includes a combination of anti-women mimicry and self-mockery known as camp which, to its trivializing effect, would deny us any chance of awakening to our own suffering, the expression of which can be recognized as revolutionary sanity by the oppressed. 9.SADO-MASCULINITY: ROLE PLAYING AND OBJECTIFICATION. The Male Principle, as exhibited in the last ten thousand years, is chiefly characterized by an appetite for objectification, role-playing, and sadism. First, the masculine preference for thinking as opposed to feeling encourages men to regard other people as things, and to use them accordingly. Second, inflicting pain upon people and animals has come to be deemed a mark of manhood, thereby explaining the well-known proclivity for rape and torture. Finally, a lust for power-dominance is rewarded in the playing out of that ultimate role, The Man, whose rapacity is amply displayed in witch-hunts, lynchings, pogroms, and episodes of genocide, not to mention the day-to-day (often life-long) subservience that he exacts from those closest to him. Masculine bias, thus, appears in our behavior whenever we act out the following categories, regardless of which element in each pair we are most drawn to at any moment: subject/object; dominant/submissive; master/slave; butch/femme. All of these false dichotomies are inherently sexist, since they express the desire to be masculine or to possess the masculine in someone else. The racism of white faggots often reveals the same set of polarities, regardless of whether they choose to act out the dominant or submissive role with black or third-world men. In all cases, only by rejecting the very terms of these categories can we become effeminists. This means explicitly rejecting, as well, the objectification of people based on such things as age; body; build; color; size or shape of facial features, eyes, hair, genitals; ethnicity or race; physical and mental handicap; life-style; sex. We must therefore strive to detect and expose every embodiment of The Male Principle, no matter how and where it may be enshrined and glorified, including those arenas of faggot objectification (baths, bars, docks, parks) where power-dominance, as it operates in the selecting of roles and objects, is known as “cruising.” 10. MASOCH-EONISM. Among those aspects of our oppression which The Man has foisted upon us, two male heterosexual perversions, in particular, are popularly thought of as being “acceptable” behavior for effeminate men: eonism (that is, male transvestitism) and masochism. Just as sadism and masculinism, by merging into one identity, tend to become indistinguishable one from the other, so masochism and eonism are born of an identical impulse to mock subservience in men, as a way to project intense anti-women feelings and also to pressure women into conformity by providing those degrading stereotypes most appealing to the sado-masculinist. Certainly, sado-masoch-eonism is in all its forms the very anti-thesis of effeminism. Both the masochist and the eonist are particularly an insult to women since they overtly parody female oppression and pose as object lessons in servility. 11. LIFE-STYLE: APPEARANCE AND REALITY. We must learn to discover and value The Female Principle in men as something inherent, beyond roles or superficial decoration, and thus beyond definition by any one particular life-style (such as the recent androgeny fad, transsexuality, or other purely personal solutions). Therefore, we do not automatically support or condemn faggots or effeminists who live alone, who live together in couples, who live together in all-male collectives, who live with women, or who live in any other way – since all these modes of living in and of themselves can be sexist but also can conceivably come to function as bases for anti-sexist struggle. Even as we learn to affirm in ourselves the cooperative impulse and to admire in each other what is tender and gentle, what is aesthetic, considerate, affectionate, lyrical, sweet, we should not confuse our own time with that post-revolutionary world when our effeminist natures will be free to express themselves openly without fear or punishment or danger of oppressing others. Above all, we must remember that it is not merely a change of appearance that we seek, but a change in reality. 12. TACTICS. We mean to support, defend and promote effeminism in all men everywhere by any means except those inherently male supremacist or those in conflict with the goals of feminists intent on seizing power. We hope to find militant ways for fighting our oppression that will meet these requirements. Obviously, we do not seek the legalization of faggotry, quotas, or civil-rights for faggots or other measures designed to reform the patriarchy. Practically, we see three phases of activity: naming our enemies to start with, next confronting them, and ultimately divesting them of their power. This means both the Cock Rocker and the Drag Rocker among counter-cultist heroes, both the Radical Therapist and the Faggot-Torturer among effemiphobic psychiatrists, both the creators of beefcake pornography and of eonistic travesties. It also means all branches of the patriarchy that institutionalize the persecution of faggots (schools, church, army, prison, asylum, old-age home). But whatever the immediate target, we would be wise to prepare for all forms of sabotage and rebellion which women might ask of us, since it is not as pacifists that we can expect to serve in the emerging world-wide anti-gender revolution. We must also constantly ask ourselves and each other for a greater measure of risk and commitment than we may have dreamt was possible yesterday. Above all, our joining in this struggle must discover in us a new respect for women, a new ability to love each other as effeminists, both of which have previously been denied us by our misogyny and effemiphobia, so that our bonding until now has been the traditional male solidarity that is always inimical to the interests of women and pernicious of our own sense of effeminist self-hood. 13. DRUDGERY AND CHILDCARE: RE-DEFINING GENDER. Our first and most important step, however, must be to take upon ourselves at least our own share of the day-to-day life-sustaining drudgery that is usually consigned to women alone. To be useful in this way can release women to do other work of their choosing and can also begin to re-define gender for the next generation. Of paramount concern here, we ask to be included in the time-consuming work of raising and caring for children, as a duty, right and privilege.

Attested to this twenty-seventh day of Teves and first day of January, in the year of our falthering Judeo-Christian Patriarchy, 5733 and 1973, by Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, and Kenneth Pitchford.

[cycleof-dusk]

updating my pinned! i want people to have better access to my characters and their basics, along with a small introduction

i’m Jax! 23, located in the EST timezone, and use they/she pronouns! follows come from @darkxyzdragon​ as this is a sideblog - but my main is predominantly FFXIV and chronic illness/disability awareness, for those interested! you can find me on the NA servers at darkxyzdragon.4792 !

Characters are under the cut for length reasons, ofc! (Hikari is all the way at the end to keep everyone in one post)

Name: Sionedda

Birthday: 69 Scion 1325 AE (almost 9 years old! also yes i did change this)

Orientation: Bisexual

Partner: Aym Riverwolf (found at @/riverwoofs)

Gender & Pronouns: Feminine, she/her

Race: Sylvari

Cycle: Dusk

Role: Pact Commander, Leader of the Crystal Bloom

Profession: Elementalist (Tempest)

Alternate Professions: Thief (Deadeye), Revenant

Titles: Commander, Lightbringer, Voice of Aurene, Champion of Aurene

Likes: Cocoa, cold temperatures, light refracting through crystals

Dislikes: Desert, humidity, chak, fire, early morning

Originally a bright violet dusk bloom, reminiscent of a succulent with her hair pattern, Sionedda is bubbly and affectionate with everyone she meets. She predominantly focuses herself on Air magic, but is also known to fall back into a more supportive role with Water. After The Departing, she has never attuned to Fire again.

Her appearance changes twice throughout the story: First, after The Departing, she awakes from the Realm of the Lost with the fern hair instead of her succulent leaves. Then, during the scene in which Caithe is Branded, in Sionedda’s story, she takes her place, and her colors shift more to richer indigos and teals.

Name: Tiernanne

Birthday: 42 Zephyr 1333 AE

Orientation: Homosexual

Partner: Pact Marshal Trahearne

Gender & Pronouns: Trans, he/him

Race: Sylvari

Cycle: Dawn

Role: Pale Reaver

Profession: Mesmer (Mirage)

Alternate Professions: n/a

Titles: Warmaster

Likes: arid desert climate, soft textures, cold drinks

Dislikes: humidity, unfamiliar areas

A blind sapling, adopted by Sionedda during the events of the Icebrood Saga. His vision allows him to see enough to fight, but he prefers not to, in the off chance he hurt someone he cared about because of it. He never has, but he would rather not take the risk. He still ascended to Pale Reaver within the Vigil, as he’s hard-working and a damn good swordsman.

Name: Destiny Sonnen

Birthday: 85 Colossus 1313 AE (20 years old)

Orientation: Homosexual

Partner: n/a

Gender & Pronouns: Cis, she/her

Race: Human

Ethnicity: Canthan/Krytan

Role: Shining Blade Associate, Double Agent

Profession: Necromancer (Reaper)

Alternate Professions: Revenant

Titles: Magister, Lightbringer

Likes: food, her minions, research

Dislikes: dead ends, the ministry guard

A street rat of Divinity’s Reach, Destiny learned that her unknown family were Shining Blade - in addition, a whole line of them, on one side, going back 250 years. In being given a family heirloom - a curved dagger, pointed at both ends - she became determined to find out more about them. She managed to become both a Whispers Lightbringer and a Priory Magister in her efforts to uncover more. She has a feeling there are a few people who know, but possibly don’t realize they do.

In seeing the Pact Commanders in Divinity’s Reach one day, she had glanced at the norn and realized at his side was the twin to her own dagger, and immediately jumped to him and interrogated the two, only to learn the Aym Riverwolf had about as much idea as she did about the daggers. Currently, she’s still searching for her answers.

Name: Eir Aymsdottir

Birthday: - (currently undecided)

Orientation: -

Partner: n/a

Gender & Pronouns: Cis, she/her

Race: Norn/Sylvari

Spirit: Wolf

Role: baby

Profession: Ranger (Druid)

Alternate Professions: n/a

Titles: Little One, Dreamer

Likes: plants, fluffy animals, sugar

Dislikes: sour foods, slipping on ice, when her pets won’t come back to her side

A bubbly Norn-Sylvari child, short for a norn but massive for a sylvari, with a bioluminescent patterning in her skin easily mistaken for traditional tattoos. These markings, along with her freckles, the roots of her hair, and her eyes glow in the dark.

She’s quite sweet, and very empathetic, with a faint connection to the Dream.

[Note: This was me looking at ArenaNet giving Sylvari a FULLY FUNCTIONING digestive system but saying “nah they absolutely cannot reproduce”; I find it cowardly that none of the main races can reproduce among each other but that’s a conversation for a different day. MY POINT BEING, no one is under any obligation to agree with my headcanons and can choose to not ask/interact with her! <3]

Name: Hikari Poole

Birthday: 58 Scion 1051 AE

Orientation: Homosexual

Partner: Zhi Yawen (@/riverwoofs), Jora

Gender & Pronouns: Trans, she/her

Race: Human

Ethnicity: Canthan

Role: Hero of Tyria, Cantha, Elona

Profession: Elementalist/Necromancer

Titles: Priestess of Grenth

Likes: girls, opulent clothing & jewelry, street food, Echovald

Dislikes: the desolation, watching her loved ones in pain

A young elementalist and necromancer, originally from a small village on Shing Jea Isle, she’s attended Shing Jea monastery from a young age, honing her magical abilities and expanding on her knack for blood magic and sacrificial arts, as opposed to minions.

She and her partner - both romantically and in crime - Yawen have traveled across Tyria, Elona, and their Canthan homeland, and helped save lives (and the world, a few times).

In death, they both haunted the Echovald forest happily, as well as traveled through the Mists; when Glint arrived, they mourned, but greeted her warmly, having loved the dragon when they met her; it was during one of their forays back into the Mists that they were directed by Glint to assist the current Tyrian heroes in their fight against Joko - seeing as the two of them are the ones who freed him in the first place, two and a half centuries prior.

[quaintqueer]

I don't know what you think about labels, maybe you are the kind of person who watches shows like Marie Kondo where they organise people's houses and put sticky labels on everything so that you can easily identify the contents. Maybe you're the kind of person who does not like to be labelled or stereotyped. Maybe you prefer to be just yourself.

I have had a very complex relationship with labels and identity. You could say that I started off on the wrong foot. My mother went to a Baptist church on Sunday morning and a Charismatic/Pentecostal hands-in-the-air, shouting and screaming, spiritual warfare kind of church on Sunday night. And my dad had his Holy Communion as a kid and then went to mass on Easter and Christmas.  So to begin with my labels were numerous and incongruent which did cause some issues for younger Zoe.

And I want to share with you about where God has led me through the understanding of this topic. I am not entirely sure where to start and I'm not sure how vague to be here but let's just say that at least the draft will be an explicit and partly chronological one.

12 year old Zoe I went to church most Sundays with her family and she was very very lucky to have a wonderful Christian friends in her life and at this point the label attached to her as a daughter was the unproblematic child and at school she was the sweet and friendly member of the God Squad or Singing Christians depending on how you asked. But those were the kind of labels that existed around that time.

What happens though to 12 year old Zoe is that she falls madly and instantaneously in love with her best friend. And almost immediately she thinks ‘am I in love with this girl? that must make me gay.’ And being a part of the circles that I was in a fairly conservative Christian family and a fairly conservative Christian School with Christian friends in that Christian school, I said ‘absolutely not. I don't want to have to deal with that.’ I was never hateful towards gay people in general I just thought I just didn't want to deal with it myself. My mum and I had had conversations about it when the plebiscite happened, and whenever we spoke about it, it was very much about ‘the gay people’ as opposed to anyone we knew or loved, let alone a Christian person, and so this whole gay thing wasn’t really thought about. Ao a few times over the next 2 or 3 years so I would ask, ‘am I in love with this girl’ And I always concluded ‘no no no you can't be in love cos you're not gay’.

By the time I’m about 14, I’ve been awoken to all different kinds of social justice movements, I took sociology, I’m going to save the world. THe labels I proudly wear are things like left wing, passionate, an ally to many different communities, in particular the lgbtq+ community.

Zoe at one point goes ‘frick frack, I'm definitely in love with this girl’. and because of the way that this world really loves labels, this was completely synonymous in my mind with being gay. My first response was probably because I'm bisexual so now that is an importand confusing label Zoë is wearing. I have somewhat fond somewhat mortifying memories of sitting on the Shinkansen, the bullet train, from Tokyo to Kyoto next to my dad doing every single ‘Am I gay’ quiz I could find online. Throughout this trip to Japan, I’m really testing the waters and every single younger woman I saw I was like ‘Is she cute? Am I attracted to her? Would I kiss her?’ and so that experience made me very nervous because I had still grown up with the mindset that if people were gay it was ok but they weren't Christian. And I was a Christian, so I just ignored it really. And this turned into a time of me hypersexualising sll of the boys that I had ever thought I had a crush on. I can quite confidently say that I didn't actually have a crush on many of them, I just thought that that was something that I should do. So there was a lot of ignoring this feeling.

We then reach year 10, 2020, a glorious year. In the first Lockdown, I finally caved and downloaded Tik Tok. The thing about Tik Tok is that it comes with its own world of labels, and I really would enjoy the kinds of conversations about what side of Tik Tok you are on. I loved that your For You Page automatically gave you certain labels to wear as a Tik Tok user, and I loved that those applied to real life. I quite quickly ended up on gay Tik Tok, among other things. I was also very firmly on Black Lives Matter Tik Tok, on disablrf Tik Tok, on Indigenous Tik Tok, so on and so forth. But much of my content was about the lgbtq community and this opened a ahole can of worms. I, at this time, carried a lot of shame for my attraction to women. For a bit of a backstory, I had been so severely heartbroken by this girl - not by her own intentional actions, I think that she was never going to feel about me the way that I felt about her and that was not her fault - but I was so seriously heartbroken that not only did I hold this moral shame but also this like emotional shame of my attraction to women. I felt like it was not a good thing morally and it didn't feel good emotionally because I had to still been really hurt about this girl and I have never really gotten over that. So for the first time on gay Tik Tok, I saw queerness and same-sex attraction as a positive thing not only in terms of ‘hey look these are women loving woman relationships that are working well’ but also ‘whether or not you're dating someone, queer identity is good for you and it's fun to talk about’. And as a type 4 on the enneagram, I love to feel special - not to say that I fabricated these feelings or that any queer person is queer for attention - but I think a big part of me felt validated or special because of my feelings and my queeness. It was like a new club that I could join. And so the labels that 15 year old Zoe wears largely consisted of queer. We had it dropped bisexual a little bit because at this point I was not sure if I like men at all and so we identified as queer or sapphic or bi or lesbian or gay - many of these words along with the left wing, Pro Black-lives-matter, pro-feminism, pro-lgbtq+, anti-colonialist anti-capitalist etc. etc. And I don't want to demonize any of those things - they are not at all negative things, I'm just painting a picture of the different labels that I wore.

Through out starting to come out to my friends and existing for longer periods of time not only on gay Tik Tok but now really searching all through the Internet for more LGBTQ+ identity - as I tried to confirm my traction for women, as I tried to decide about my attraction to men, about what label I should wear, and what it's like being in the LGBTQ+ community different, spaces where we interact, different identities and labels and experiences of queerness. So I really tied myself to this identity and it is I think so much because of the way the world sees labels as I said and so my first response was ‘well if I like girls I must be gay and if I'm gay I must identify that way and that has to be the most important thing about me’ because all the people I was seeing online really loved being gay. They were proud of their identity in their queeness. In the world as much as I think that we like to think we’ve got this ‘your sexuality or your gender identity doesn't matter. Gay and straight and bi and pan and whoever you are, we’re all human’, I think it often the world does like to draw those lines on both sides. Within queer communities there was - obviously ironically and satirically - this heterophobia honestly. (I'm joking!) But there was a real pride in this identity of whichever specific label you wear as well as the wider lgbtq plus label which led me to believe my sexuality was who I was. And that proved really quite awkward because I knew that my church and my family and many of my Christian friends believed that same sex marriage and romance was sinful. Because of the strong connection between my identity and my sexuality, if my sexuality was sinful, that meant that I was inherently and completely sinful and I didn't like that. It wasn't a fun feeling. After all of the years of learning about God’s gift of grace to us, kind of I lost in the crevices of my mind and whenever I thought about God I was met with feelings of shame and fear and dread and resentment sometimes even anger and I grew to be so despairing.

Eventually I tried the various progressive Christianity movements that teach that ‘God doesn't actually say the being gay is a sin, the Bible is pro queerness and don't even worry about it, God made you exactly the way that you are and he loves you the way that you are, go forth and have that lesbian relationship that you so desperately want’. But that never really sat right with me. It brought up other questions of ‘well if the current translation of the Bible says things like marriage is between a man and a woman, God made man and woman, any sex outside of marriage is sinful, or even the parts that say that ‘homosexuality is sinful, or man lying with man in certain translations, is sinful what happened to that part of the Bible?’ And of course I heard the response about how at the Bible was written by man and not by God and that it is fragile and can be manipulated and basically King James ruined the whole Bible when he wrote that translation and you don't have to listen to it. But that really didn't work for me. If that part of the Bible had been mistranslated how could I know that the rest of the Bible hadn't been mistranslated? If words like homosexuality weren't in the original text and they had been added there or mistranslated how could I understand the words like grace and love and hope and patience and kindness and peace and righteousness and holiness and justice? What if they were mistranslated? What if the whole Gospel was not how it was written in the Bible because the Bible was man-made? Pretty immediatelyI decided I couldn’t really understand a Christianity where homosexuality is not a sin because Christianity is written in the Bible and the Bible says that quite clearly. I believe that the Bible is directly the Word of God, that it is perfect, that the way that it is translated - obviously different translations vary - but that it is right from God’s mouth so imediately was like I can't believe in it Christianity where homosexuality is not a sin and so I've got to pick Christian or Gay.

And I didn’t want to choose Christian because I had this point has grown quite fond of being gay and I mean, I was truly just attracted to women, right, like I wanted a girlfriend and so I tried really hard to ignore God. I was still going to church, twice or three times a week and all that, and I could not shake the existence of God. I knew God existed. I knew that He created the world, that He was good and that they was the thing called sin that separated us from him. I knew that sin led to death. I knew that He had sent His Son to bridge the gap between himself and sinners. I knew that Son was Jesus and that He died on the cross and he rose again and I knew that if you believed in him you would spend eternity with God which was a really good thing. I could not shake those feelings, all those beliefs, and I absolutely praise God for that. I'm so beyond grateful that God did not leave me, even when I hated him and resented him and felt so much anger towards him. Praise Jesus!

All this left me thinking, well some people could go to heaven, but God hates me because of my feelings. He does not want me part of His kingdom if I'm gay. I can't ever go to heaven because I'm a sinner, and sinners don’t go to heaven. I truly don't know where all my years of learning about the grace of God had gone. This led me to a really distressed position, probably one of the lowest ever my mental health had been. I was just not coping and I ended up being kind of forced to tell my mum. I don't really want to say too much on this part of the story but by the middle-ish end of year 10 I ended up coming out to my mum and she told my dad, ‘cause I refused to do it myself, and then I got a therapist. Finally, now that my mum knew, I could ask her what I had so desperately wante to ask her - if she could please buy me some books about being gay and Christian. And so she did. And I slowly but surely started to read them, I started to read my Bible more and I started to really search for what it meant to have faith trust in God’s grace and not in your own work, not in your own actions or thoughts or words. The first book I got in particular was really hard to read it was based more on specific Theology and not on personal experience and I needed that foundation in what God really said because I had just had conversations with my mum and she had reminded me ‘God is real and he loves you and he sent his son to die for you and that is an option for you as much as it is for anyone else, your queerness does not separate you from Christ's death and resurrection’. There is a wonderful bible verse that became very important to me at this time. Romans 8, the very end of the chapter, says ‘for I'm convinced that neither death not life neither Angels not Demons need of a present or the future and or any Powers neither height nor depth nor anything else in All Creation will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our lord.’ So with this in mind, I decided that I could trust God and now I just needed to learn how. so I worked away through different books, through different parts of the Bible, praying really hard, searching online and asking really hard questions to some really awesome Christian women in my life, and asking God to reveal to me exactly what he thought about me and about queerness and so eventually we get to the present moment. I by no means know everything that I wish I knew, but now I can say that I wholly trust God with my next life - I trust that he has the power and the strength and the holiness to overcome even my sin which sometimes feels like the biggest there is. and I trust him with this life - that life with him is so much better than any lesbian affair I could ever experience.

I want to personally apologize to any one who the church or the world has ever made believe that they are somehow exempt from God’s love because of who they are or what they've done or how they’ve felt. That is false. There is no one that does not sin, no one that is not inherently separated from God. And there is no one who is too far from Jesus' power to be saved from that sin. God is bigger than your sin, I promise you.

I want to take this time to mourn for the lives lost and the joy and peace forfeited because of the way people who claim to know God treat queer people. I'm sorry if you have been made to feel less than because of the church. In the process of overcoming of guilt and shame that I have felt over the year, one more verse that I found really important. 1 John 1 says that ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.’

So for me, I don't identify with my sexuality. I don't want to say that I'm straight now, that's not really true. but my sexuality is not what makes me who I am. I am a person fearfully and wonderfully made by God and I am a daughter of God in Christ. I am not ashamed of my feelings. I do think that it is worth mentioning that an attraction or a desire or an impulse is not the same as a sin. The Bible tells us that Jesus himself was tempted in every way and the Bible also tells us that Jesus is blameless and never sinned. And so I think it's worth the clarification that same-sex attraction or anything like that is not sinful itself and also that being gay is never worse than anyone else's sin, and it is never ever bigger than God.

I just want you all to know that there is nothing that you have done that makes you exempt from God’s love for you, to know that he is trustworthy, that the Bible is trustworthy, and I encourage you that your value is inherent as a person made in God’s image and that with Jesus, you can have identity in his son alone. When he sees you, he sees the goodness and perfection of Jesus if you believe in him.

[ramon-balaguer]

As reflect on my recent prayer post from a married friend on the download or closeted homosexual or bisexual if you will… praying against his homosexual temptations and thoughts to be a true husband and father to their children…

I believe more needs to be discussed, revealed and taught on sexual sins. Not just for their benefit but for ours, as The Church to extend love, grace and mercy.

And though this is focused on same sex stuff like lesbians and homosexuals, it really can be applied to ANY sexual sin, even in the heterosexual sphere, so let’s dig in and see what God has to say, that unfortunately so many see as Hate talk or speech:

 What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?

Few subjects are more controversial today in the church than this: What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

If one regards the Bible as God-breathed and authoritative, then one must respect whatever the Lord says about every topic.

What we say and think about the LGBT+ (#LHBTTABCDFIGMPPQZ) community should be derived from Scripture, including the ways in which we are to treat one another.

 Bible Verses about Homosexuality

Christians must always start with the Bible in order to hear God’s Word on any subject. His commands are not optional, and he states clearly, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:26).

 Some Christians suggest that a progressive God would overturn his own commands in a certain social climate, but God does not progress in his thinking; his thoughts and commandments are always right.

We know that God does not change his mind. That he is always the same; and this is foundational to our hope and our faith in his Kingdom purposes.

God was, is, and always will be against sexual sin in all of its forms, which include lust for a person who is not one’s spouse, sexual affairs, and even emotional affairs.

One must not single out someone who identifies as gay or transgender as a “sinner” but instead look inward. Ignoring one’s own sin by way of deflection does not fool God.

 Modern Arguments about Etymology

There is an argument that Scripture does not contain the word “homosexuality” and that God is not opposed to men or women having sex with consenting members of the same sex. The word “zakar” in Hebrew can refer to any male, including human and animal, but also to boys.

But Strong’s concordance indicates that “zakar,” as used in Leviticus 18:22 above, refers to sodomy, a term not reserved for acts of child sexual abuse or rape but also consensual acts between adults.

“Arsenokoitai” is Greek for “men having sex with other men. And there is no real other interpretation that makes the best sense of the evidence both in the early Christian literature and especially in the Old Testament.”

Kevin DeYoung explains that Paul, a scholar and former Pharisee, coined the term. If Paul had been referring to men forcing boys to have sex, then he could have used the word “biazó” for “violent force” to denote a difference between consensual and non-consensual sex. He did not.

 Positive Commands about Sex

Sex is a gift. “Before the fall — before sin — sex was part of the created order. It was good — VERY GOOD,” wrote Paul Carter. “In fact, contrary to cultural ideas about sex propounded during the first century AD, “Christianity taught that sex within a marriage should be free, generous and reciprocal.”

But God never depicted coital relationships between two men or two women in a positive way. When God made Eve, Adam said “this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman” (Genesis 23).

Marriage is represented frequently in Scripture. We have the examples of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, and Rebekah, Ruth and Boaz; Mary and Joseph; and several more. None of these couples was perfect, but each is an example of heterosexual marriage.

 Jesus' Relationships

When it comes to how society treats individuals who engage in homosexual relationships, Jesus’ attitude is the benchmark. The gospels illustrate how Jesus wants us to treat a person who has been marginalized by society on the basis of gender by highlighting several encounters Jesus had with women.

He called out their sin but offered something better. He allowed Mary Magdalene to serve him by washing his feet with her hair. The Messiah saved an adulterous woman from stoning. The Samaritan woman depicted in John 4 had been married five times and was with a sixth man.

He sat and talked with her when the rest of her community shunned the woman. Each of these women was guilty, but so were the Pharisees and other members of society who scorned or condemned them, and the men who used them.

Instead of judging these women, Jesus invited them to be part of his mission. The Samaritan woman was one of his first apostles. Mary was among his devoted followers.

Jesus gave these women a new identity so that they could freely choose to follow him, relieved of shame, and make him the focus of their lives. Everyone needs God’s mercy, but 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is often taken out of context so that the emphasis lands on homosexuality.

This narrow-mindedness overlooks thievery, greed, drunkenness, abuse, and fraud which are also listed. Paul does not exclude anyone, even classifying himself as the chief of sinners. (1 Timothy 1:15)

 Intimacy, Identity, and Culture

You may have heard of the famous South Carolinian Gospel singer, actor and Minister of the Gospel Donald “Donnie” Andrew McClurkin, Jr. I greatly admire him for his many gifts and talent, but especially his complete uncompromised commitment to our God despite his struggle with his sinful fleshly and worldly desires of homosexuality that started with being sexually abused by two uncles and ended being ostracized and blacklisted by Barack Hussein Obama for his opposing views on Same-Sex Marriage… Likewise Sam Allberry, a same-sex pastor from England, confronts the pain of being alone, even by choice, on the grounds of obedience to God. Celibacy is made more difficult by the elevation of marital intimacy to a lofty position above all other forms, including friendship.

Allberry’s fear is that “if someone’s only choice in life seems to be either unbiblical intimacy or no intimacy, they’re going to end up choosing unbiblical intimacy. And if that’s the case, I think the wider church shares responsibility for that.”

As Allberry asserts, people within the LGBT+ (#LHBTTABCDFIGMPPQZ) and the entire #SinSickSocialistLyingLeftistLiberal community are being denied access to this kind of intimacy, so even those who are keen to follow God’s commands and to please Him by their faithful obedience are drawn to other sources for belonging and acceptance.

Jesus never taught his disciples to deny friendship and familial love to anyone. “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50).

He also promoted mutually uplifting, godly friendship. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). The word friend, philos in the Greek, means “beloved” or “dear.” “I have called you friends,” Jesus said to his disciples (John 15:15).

Not everyone accepts forgiveness through Jesus; but he offers dignity, love, and truth to everyone. When a Gospel-Believing person highlights Sin in a person’s life, the purpose should always be to point that person to Jesus and His Saving grace and mercies.

Admitting and repenting of Sin, turning to Christ for Salvation, restores a person to peace and wholeness with God. Many so-called Christians, however, point fingers and exalt themselves by knocking down anyone whose lifestyle does not line up with their own.

 A Merciful Love

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:1-2).

A big problem in the church right now is the attitude that because someone identifies as homosexual, lesbian (or gay as they now prefer to be called), transgender, pedophile, etc., that they should not be welcomed into the church.

This is wrong for a few reasons:

1. We are all sinners. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the plank sticking out of one’s eye while examining the speck in someone else’s (Matthew 7:3-5).

2. We are commanded not to judge others. If we treat other people as though they are not as valuable to God as we are, then we risk incurring his judgment on ourselves (Matthew 7:1-2).

3. Jesus hung out with everyone. He ate with sinners. That’s why the Pharisees were so scandalized. He offered the gift of his presence and the offer of salvation without prejudice.

4. Jesus says, “Come to me all you who are weary.” This is not an invitation to particular individuals who qualify on the basis of their behavior or lifestyle but to anyone who is tired (Matthew 11:28).

Given the obstacles and even dangers the LGBQT+ community faces, added to the ordinary strains of life in general, one might imagine they are very weary, indeed.

 What’s Next for the Church

Everyone was made in God’s image, but not all people embrace Christ’s message of Hope, Peace, Love, Holiness, Grace, Mercy, and Justice.

One reason for this is religious arrogance (Not much has changed in over 2,000 years, sadly) — Christians who act as though they are in a position to condemn or pardon.

But if churches shut their doors to those who defy God’s commands about sexual intimacy, the doors would be shut to everyone. The duty and privilege of Christ’s disciples are to offer all who will listen to the message of salvation and the promise of a love greater than anything.

His Love and Justice go together, but all who call on Christ’s name for Salvation are covered by His Blood. Believe it or not, that includes same-sex folks and all the rest… Each of us is a work in progress.

We can teach His inerrant Word but must always do so without judging or persecuting anyone, and with love and kindness.

If churches shut their doors to those who defy God’s commands about sexual intimacy, the doors would be shut to everyone. The smokers and drunkards, the liars and gossipers, the thieves and robbers, the cheaters and beaters…

The duty and privilege of Christ’s disciples are to offer all who will listen to the message of Salvation, Restoration and the promise of a love greater than anything.

 I have way too many friends and family who’ve dibbled and dabbled or live out any of these lifestyles the same way others do with alcohol, marijuana, porn or other addictive drugs… but I Love them all and would support and do anything for them that I’d do for anyone else within the Word of God. :) #REBTD

 My God and Father, how great is Your Love and Mercy… Thank You for Saving me from me and my poor choices in this life. Thank You for Saving my wife, sons and Godsons and so many family and friends from the Devil’s deceptions that lead to addictive behaviors. My Lord, bless and increase their Faith and Hope in You to continually walk with You that they won’t lose the precious Gift of Salvation from when they first Believed. Last but not least, let the lost find You and takeaway any thought or desire to sin and come to You with a repentant heart to give themselves to You. In Jesus’ Saving name, Amen.

[queersatanic]

Queer theory posits that homosexuality doesn't exist because sexuality is fluid. Queer theory posits that a heterosexual couple engaged in kink or polyamory is more subversive than a same-sex gay or bi couple who gets married, and they've opposed gay marriage on the grounds of normativity. Queer is used as a slur in the black community I grew up in, so I do have bad associations with it, but I object to queer's hostility to homosexual boundaries more than anything. It's simply a political ideology that rejects my nature, so I in turn reject it. You should do more research instead of pretending there's solely a radfem objection and not controversy since the beginning within the LGBT+.

If you call yourself a homosexual, then good news: queer theory says homosexuality exists.

But if you mean it in the sense that you can diagnose other people and they either retain a status by adhering to some standard of purity you have decided for them, then no. That’s just you doing the straights’ work for them, and apparently for free.

The idea of “more subversive” or “less subversive” is kinda weird. Like, yeah, Peter Thiel is operating with the benefit of huge amounts of other structural advantages in the world, but he’s still gay. Even though he’s a Republican and was functionally in the closet till Gawker outed him, there’s a reason he doesn’t live in Republican-controlled areas of the country: even as a billionaire, he would not be safe going to a bar in rural Mississippi or eastern Washington. Because the dude is gay, a queerness that puts his physical safety in danger in some situations where cisheteronormativity matters more than money or political influence. Our ol’ boy ain’t visiting Corinth or the Spokane Valley incognito any time in his life.

But the point is that being queer isn’t a contest. There should not be a points system or hierarchy among us, which unfortunately seems to be the case for a lot of people who stress that they are HOMOSEXUAL, as in, legitimate sexual minorities in contrast to the illegitimate, and actually something, unlike all those other pretenders. See also: “BIOLOGICAL” female or male qualifiers.

If you don’t want to call yourself queer, OK. You don’t have to describe yourself that way. But if you want to say other people aren’t allowed to do so, or to have queer studies or have queer fiction be a genre, it’s going to be tough to square that with all the people who can point to being called gay or lesbian or dyke or butch or sissy or homo(sexual) as slurs in their community or yours.

Your message is weird just in terms of how your logic extends and where it stops. Not surprising, but weird, as all exclusionary reasoning tends to end up. 

[comrade-meow]

Now Jackson is helping to lead LGB Alliance, which she co-founded with Kate Harris, in its fight against the promotion of gender identity policies and their corrosive impact on lesbians’ and gay men’s lives. And LGB Alliance enjoys the support of another of the Gay Liberation Front’s founders, as she revealed to David Bridle.

How did you first hear about the Gay Liberation Front meeting?

I was a student at LSE. I started there in 1969, I was studying maths, and I walked down the corridor and I saw a poster which said: “First meeting of the UK Gay Liberation Front.” It was the most astonishing thing because I had to translate it in my head as to what it might mean. I had heard that “Gay” was a new word for homosexual, and I knew “Liberation” was about freedom and “Front” sounded a bit militant. It sounded very exciting and I thought “I think I want to be on there that sounds right.” I went to this first meeting and there were 19 men there, and just one woman – me – so I was immediately voted on to the steering committee.

What happened in the first meeting?

Aubrey Walter and Bob Mellors had just come back from the United States where they’d been at the Revolutionary People’s Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a meeting called by the Black Panther Party. They were real liberationists and it was very clear that this was going to be a revolutionary movement. What was very clear from the beginning was that gay liberation must be aligned with women’s liberation because they wanted to break through the sexist principles that society was based on. That was the theory anyway. At the second meeting there were a few more women.

How did the gay men and lesbian women get on?

I did notice that while a lot of the gay men were very interested in aligning with the women’s movement and breaking through sexist role patterns, there was also a certain amount of misogyny among some of the gay men. I can remember thinking it’s going to be difficult for men and women to work together. I was among the minority of lesbians who decided to work within gay liberation; most lesbians worked within women’s liberation because of feeling more in common with other women’s issues. The fact of lesbians being doubly oppressed both as women and as homosexuals is just a really important part of understanding what it means to be a lesbian. Some men really get that ­– and some men really don’t.

What was the first Gay Liberation Front demonstration?

We organised our first demo in November 1970 at Highbury Fields and that was just astonishing. We’re demonstrating and there’s crowds lining the street looking at us in disgust. It really is quite something to be walking down the street and to see these people looking at you with revulsion in their faces. You stand taller because you think we’re together and we’re out. Our main message was “Come out of the closet”, show the world there’s lots and lots of gays and lesbians – and your ideas about them are all wrong. I was the spokesperson for the demonstration and my telephone was the number for Gay Liberation Front. I spoke to the reporter at The Times and I said “It is important to know that we are not ashamed to be homosexual”. For years I thought what a very mild and rather timid thing to have said.

Bev Jackson spoke to The Times: “It is important to know that we are not ashamed to be homosexual”

How do you feel about that now in 2021?

I look back now and I think – God, we have to say the same thing again – that is insane! What on earth has happened? That’s what drives us, the idea that our legacy has been trashed. They’re making homosexual into a dirty word and even trying to avoid saying “gay” and “lesbian”. We’re not a string of letters. It’s absolutely fine to be attracted to people of the same sex. It’s beautiful. It’s wonderful. The idea that people are reintroducing the notion of shame into same-sex sexual orientation is quite appalling.

What was your most important experience growing up?

When I was 11 years old I went to a new school and I really wanted to make friends but I was Jewish in a very anti-Semitic neighbourhood. We had this teacher who kept making anti-Semitic remarks and then at one point she looked around and said “I suppose nobody here is Jewish?” And the whole class burst out laughing. They thought that was such a hilarious idea that anybody in the class could be Jewish – and I put my hand up. I said, “Please Miss, I have some Jewish relations” – in fact I’m totally Jewish – and then I had to go to the toilet and throw up. Later my class teacher found out and she said if anybody made any anti-Semitic remarks again, I should tell her and she’d kick them down the stairs. So it wasn’t the case that everybody was anti-Semitic. Having found myself able to speak out at that time, feeling the terror of being alone, but also the need to say the truth, that’s been the most important moment of my life. It made me strong. It enabled me to come out as a lesbian in a very hostile homophobic environment when I was 16 and it’s enabled me now to stand up against the forces in the wider LGBTQIA+ movement as someone who is critical of the whole concept of gender identity.

Was there a point – prior to the formation of LGB Alliance – when you personally followed the issues around gender identity and their impact on same-sex attraction?

In 2015 I was mostly involved with refugee rights. I worked with refugees on the island of Lesbos and I wrote a book about it. I was only vaguely aware of what was going on in terms of the LGB rights movement. I remember at Christmas 2016 expressing my views about children thinking there was something wrong with their bodies, and changing their bodies, and being critical of this. I discovered that this was seen as quite a reactionary view and I thought that was odd. It didn’t seem reactionary to me. So I started researching it and the more I researched it the more worried I became. What was happening that young lesbians were no longer welcome in the LGBT rights movement? It just didn’t seem possible and I thought people must be exaggerating. I researched it more and more, and then came that moment in 2018 when Angela Wild went to the front of the Pride march with her “Get the L Out” group, and I thought “what is she doing?” I soon realised that this action had actually been quite necessary because it attracted attention and focused people’s minds.

You wrote to Ruth Hunt who was then in charge of Stonewall?

I wrote her a very long letter with all my concerns about young lesbians having nowhere to meet, not being able to call themselves lesbians any more, about the way in which people were encouraging children to think that they might be born in the wrong body and a whole range of other concerns that really worried me. She didn’t write back. She ignored my concerns. Eventually I published the whole letter on Twitter because I wasn’t going to get a response. I also wrote to other people at Stonewall saying, “Can we talk please? I’m one of the founding members of the Gay Liberation Front and I’m concerned.”

What happened to Stonewall in the years prior?

What happened is in 2015 Ruth Hunt decided to add the T to LGB. It was basically following what had happened in the United States. In the US it had been LGBT much longer than that and there was pressure on her to do the same. Since the T has been added to Stonewall the whole ethos has changed. The emphasis is now all on gender identity. The issue is presented as if it’s about trans rights, but it isn’t really. I don’t know what a middle-aged man who’s got several children and then decides he’s a woman has in common with a 14-year-old girl who is feeling distressed for various reasons and feels that she must be a boy. It’s very difficult to see that those two people can come under the same heading. According to Stonewall’s website, “trans” includes crossdressers or people who are male part of the week and female another part, and people who are non-binary – and it’s not clear what that means either. None of these words are defined and therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about half the time. Laws are based on facts and it’s really important to define the words that are used. The shocking thing that’s happened at Stonewall, and at all LGBTQ+ organisations, is that the word “sex” has been replaced by “gender”. This is not a small thing. Instead of “same-sex attraction” they now talk about “same-gender attraction”.

Here’s this young lesbian standing up against this clinic and on the other side you’ve got Stonewall opposing her. How is this possible and why are people not seeing that Stonewall has stopped supporting gay and lesbian rights and is instead promoting gender ideology or whatever you want to call it?

What do people like Stonewall think gender means?

A lot of the gender identity campaign is about changing the meanings of words or making words slippery. So you don’t quite know what you’re talking about. Gender is one of the worst examples. As soon as they try to explain it they end up with stereotypes. There isn’t any other way to do it. What can it possibly mean? Is there some sort of girly essence that can live inside a male body? That is just the most sexist thing I’ve ever heard. It’s not progressive. It’s awful. It seems to me that this whole idea of gender identity has been stuck in between reality – which is the sex of your body, you’re male or female – and the imagination, the feelings you might have, as a sort of intermediate thing. It’s kind of loosening people’s grip on reality. Look: you can be a lovely gentle male and you can wear dresses and you can call yourself Lilian and it’s absolutely fine. But you’re still a male and you can imagine you might be all sorts of things, but you’re still a male. And with girls what’s going on is really unfortunate, a kind of way to escape from being a woman because it’s not very easy to be a girl growing up.

Can you talk about the Keira Bell case?

Most astonishingly perhaps you’ve got Stonewall opposing Keira Bell, this young lesbian who sued the Tavistock GIDS Clinic for not giving her the care she had needed. Instead she was given puberty blockers and had her breasts removed and she now knows it was all a mistake. She won her case. The judges used the word “surprised” I think five times in the judgment because they were astonished that the clinic doesn’t keep proper records, doesn’t know the proportion of child patients who are on the autistic spectrum, doesn’t follow up patients after treatment, doesn’t keep notes on consent, doesn’t have evidence for the treatment. Here’s this young lesbian standing up against this clinic and on the other side you’ve got Stonewall opposing her. How is this possible and why are people not seeing that Stonewall has stopped supporting gay and lesbian rights and is instead promoting gender ideology or whatever you want to call it?

How was the inaugural meeting of LGB Alliance set up?

I was asked to take part in a commemoration in the run-up to 50 years of the Gay Liberation Front that was going to take place at LSE on 22nd October 2019. They sent me a train ticket and I was going to take part in the panel. Around the same time, I met Kate Harris. She had published a petition, together with Johnny Best, calling on Stonewall to enter into dialogue about the course it had taken. They refused to do so even though a massive 10,000 people had signed the petition. Then the LSE meeting was cancelled, but I already had my train ticket. So I said to Kate “why don’t we just have our own meeting on that day, and start something new?” We went looking for people who were expressing similar ideas and invited each one separately. We decided to have the meeting at Conway Hall because it had a history of involvement with social movements. We knew that if news got out there would be tremendous antagonism, maybe aggression, and so we hired four security officers just in case. But everyone kept the secret. Not one of the 70 people we invited gave away the meeting at which we formed LGB Alliance.

I was contacted just a few days ago, for the first time in half a century, by Aubrey Walter, one of the founders of the Gay Liberation Front in the UK, who edited a book about the early years entitled Come Together and now lives in Spain. He wrote to express his support for LGB Alliance. When I asked him to provide a comment for this article he wrote this: “What is our movement about if not same-sex love? Good to see LGB Alliance standing up for this principle against false gender ideologies.”

What would you like the Conservative Government to do?

We were very pleased that the government decided not to go through with gender self-ID. That would have severely undermined the rights of women and gay and lesbian people. The argument is always cast in terms of trans rights. It’s not about trans rights. Of course trans people have rights under the law and we fully support those rights. The argument is really about gender identity. We’re also extremely glad that the Department for Education issued new guidance saying that relationships and sex education has to be based on evidence – on facts – and schools should not be working with external groups that teach children that if they don’t fit into old-fashioned stereotypes they might have been “born in the wrong body”. We are paying attention to see that schools actually keep to the new guidance, however. Then there is the matter of single-sex spaces – in prisons, rape shelters etc. Single-sex spaces are guaranteed in the Equality Act but they are being misinterpreted. We do wish the government had gone further and cleared up these misunderstandings and also clarified that for a woman to request a female doctor is a perfectly lawful and reasonable request – and a woman, of course, is an adult human female.

Has LGB Alliance ever been invited to meet Stonewall, Pride in London or Mermaids?

No, and all our invitations are just ignored or declined. We did of course write to Nancy Kelley [CEO of Stonewall] when she was appointed to congratulate her and to invite her to meet us, but no.

LGB Alliance is often accused of being a “hate group”. Why has this stuck and is there nothing you can do to counter it?

Anybody who actually listens to us, reads what we write and watches our webinars gradually realises that it isn’t true. But it’s a very clever tactic. If you’ve got no arguments, what do you do? People have a right to their own beliefs but they don’t have a right to impose those beliefs on the rest of us – but in order to shut us up, all they have is insults. We certainly don’t hate anybody and more and more trans people are coming over to our side because they see that actually they’re really suffering from all this. They’re being drawn into this really nasty atmosphere which is not about trans rights. It’s about imposing a belief system that some people have on the whole of society. “No debate” and “you’re hateful” is all they’ve got. They have to stop us talking.

Gay men and lesbians need spaces of their own and they have a right to spaces of their own – and that we have to say this now in 2021 is an absolute outrage. We could really lose a lot here if we don’t stand together and fight against this madness.

Looking back on yourself going to that first meeting of the Gay Liberation Front in 1970 and now fighting for lesbian and gay rights all over again, how does it feel?

I feel I have a duty to expose this monstrous Injustice for what it is. Most of the people who oppose us and who call us a hate group, I think they’re probably very well-meaning. They’ve been misinformed. They listen to people who they trust and they say “that LGB Alliance, it leaves out the ‘T’. That sounds mean, it must be a hate group.” Since the Keira Bell case we’re getting some light now. People are starting to realise that something terrible is happening to kids who would in most cases be lesbian and gay if they grow up – that they are being persuaded that they need medication, and maybe surgery. How could anybody think that’s a progressive thing?

The Gay Liberation Front demands in 1970

What about single-sex spaces for lesbians and gay men?

We get messages all the time from young lesbians who are excluded from LGBT clubs because they say they’re not interested in people with penises. “Oh you’re transphobic!” they’re told. Where are they supposed to go? Why are there no places for lesbians any more? It affects gay men too. A very sad group of gay men who had their own reading club contacted us. They had run this group for years and are now being told they can’t have it anymore. They have to have trans men in there because otherwise they’re not being inclusive. They’re just totally baffled. Why are gay rights and lesbian rights going backwards? How dare anybody call this progressive! Gay men and lesbians need spaces of their own and they have a right to spaces of their own – and that we have to say this now in 2021 is an absolute outrage. We could really lose a lot here if we don’t stand together and fight against this madness.

What is your message to the people who once marched with you in the Gay Liberation Front but now attack you?

I would say that some of those who marched with us then see us, as the veteran gay rights campaigner Fred Sargeant sees us, as reviving the spirit of gay liberation. In fact quite by coincidence I was contacted just a few days ago, for the first time in half a century, by Aubrey Walter, one of the founders of the Gay Liberation Front in the UK, who edited a book about the early years entitled Come Together and now lives in Spain. He wrote to express his support for LGB Alliance. When I asked him to provide a comment for this article he wrote this: “What is our movement about if not same-sex love? Good to see LGB Alliance standing up for this principle against false gender ideologies.” – Aubrey Walter, co-founder of the London Gay Liberation Front, 1970.

What are LGB Alliance’s plans for the future?

Reviving LGB rights everywhere. There are now 15 LGB groups set up along the same lines as ours, from Brazil to Australia, from Canada to Poland. Our aim: global revolution!

For more information about LGB Alliance go to: https://lgballiance.org.uk

[fromirelandtokorea]

Lesson #129: The LGBT+ Community in Korea:

LGBTQ+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and more) issues are being more accepted and addressed worldwide in recent years, with many new countries passing laws against discrimination, conversion therapy and introducing laws for same-sex marriage and gender confirmation on legal documents (passports, licenses, etc.)

However, as wonderful as this is for LGBTQ+ people, it does not mean that they are all accepted and loved for who they are. In South Korea, the conservative society still deems homosexuality as unnatural or a choice that people make, contrary to the fact and knowledge of broader LGBTQ+ identities and orientations are very much lacking. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Korea, but same-sex marriage is not. As well as this, conversion therapy is not banned, homosexual military applicants are illegal and same-sex couples cannot adopt. 

There are some protections in place for queer Koreans, against discrimination in general and in areas such as housing and employment discrimination, as well as gender confirmation being legalized and more openly accepted. Citizens of all ages in this society have shown support or opposition to LGBTQ+ movements, with protestors gathering at queer events such as Seoul Queer Festival, calling it “obscene and provocative”. One Korean citizen whom I interviewed mentioned that one year when he was present at the festival he witnessed “vagina cookies, d*ck jelly” at the festival and found it quite revealing and provocative. Many opposing Koreans seem to think that all queer people dress in an outrageous fashion and said that they hope that they can welcome them back to “Korean standards” and “religious values”.

In an interview conducted at Seoul Queer Festival, many younger people who attended the festival said that many people are stuck in the old ways and that foreign views on these issues are very different. It seems that the younger generation is becoming more aware of how the conservative society is affecting queer people, forcing them to isolate themselves and feel alone and alienated, which in turn can have a detrimental effect on their mental health and physical wellbeing. 

It is frighteningly clear that there are a large number of worrying issues surrounding these vulnerable people, however, fortunately there is progress being made in South Korea every year, and more awareness being spread worldwide about these issues. 

To get a further, more personal insight into these issues, I asked a Korean friend of mine who is currently working in Ireland to answer some questions I had about LGBTQ+ issues in Korea. Here are the questions I asked and the answers that my friend Hansol provided me with: Q. What is LGBT+/gay culture like in Korea and is it different to Ireland? A. We are very closed. Especially old people think that it is awful. But the new generation are starting to understand LGBT.

Q. What do you think about it? Did coming to Ireland change your opinion or thoughts on Korea’s closed culture? A. Yes absolutely. When I was in Korea I used to work as a campaigner at LUSH which is a cosmetic brand. And I worked for LGBT (people) as well. But even though I worked for LGBT, I couldn’t understand them totally. It looks so weird.

Q. What about Ireland changed that for you? A. Since I’ve been here, I’ve seen LGBT (people) more than Korea, it’s started to adapt. I realise LGBT are the same as us and it's a common culture, and gay people get married, they don’t care to kiss on the street. But in my country, it’s rare to see that. I feel like Irish respect them, in Korea most people don’t respect them so LGBT hides from society. 

Q. If someone came out to you as LGBT+, what would you say to them now after coming to Ireland? A. I just respect whatever they do, I just leave them. 

Q. Do you think that LGBT+ people have a hard time around the world? A. I think, so far. Actually, I have no idea about western culture but especially in Oriental culture.

Q. Korea has a lot of different religions, do you think religion is a big reason it is disrespected or the general conservative society? A. Especially Christian. We have an LGBT parade, but it’s not common. It’s a minority event and sometimes Christians protest in front of them. 

Q. Do you think LGBT+ Koreans and foreigners are treated differently in Korea? A. I think so. We have an open mind for foreigners, so we can understand LGBT from abroad. 

As you can tell, Hansol really gave me an interesting insight into the views on LGBT+ issues and how her view has changed since she came to Ireland. Still left with some curiosity and a need for more opinions, I posted on HelloTalk asking Koreans for their opinions on LGBTQ+ people and issues. Here were the responses:

진세린 (Jin Serin): 편견없어요 그들도 사람을 사랑하고 있는 사람이죠. Trans: No prejudice, they are people who love people.

Sung yong: I wanna be gay too! Cuz they get dressed so well and they are always amongst the girls lmao. But if they show any interest in me, I would be umm..

StanleyHan: 점점 이해하는 사람들이 많아지고 있어요! Trans: More and more people understand! 90Babo: 여자만이 남자를 사랑할 수 있어요? ㅋㅋㅋ But I’m a straight. Trans: Can only a woman love a man? Ha ha ha But I’m a straight.

Jay: Well...these people are so open-minded haha. I feel still quite disgusting. I saw they made vagina cookies and d*ck jelly in lgbt festival in seoul and they’re spreading AIDS..Lesbians cause gender confliction of the websites and many girls are participating in it. I don’t want to care about them but they do like to reveal themselves. That’s why I don’t understand them though. 

Marquis St.German: 게이들 중에 40-50프로는 여지친구 두고, 결혼해서 아들, 딸 있던데, 꼭 그런 것만은 아닌 듯 하네요.. Trans: Among the gays, 40-50% have had a girlfriend, married and had a son or daughter. It doesn’t seem like it..

Jaemi gyopo 3sae: Never understood it and found it gross. But I watched Call Me By Your Name. It changed my mind on how I felt. That you could love someone of the same gender. And the feelings are true. And love would be true. People find it disgusting because they are thinking about it sexually, which is just a small part of love. 

Soojin: It seems like people are living in two separate worlds. Some straight people never know that there are so many LGBT+ people around them and just think those are only seen in queer parade, And some of them believe it’s okay to reveal their hate directly, since Korean society allows that. 지금은 나아지고 있다고 하는데, 제가 초, 중, 고등학교 다닐때이와 관련뒨 교유육은 받아본 적 없어요. Trans: It is said that it is getting better now, but I have never received any education related to it when I was in elementary, middle and high school.

If you made it to the end of this post, firstly thank you and secondly I hope you don’t lose hope with any negativity on this post. I am a huge supporter and a member of the LGBT+ community, and I hope that with knowledge of this issue we can help educate and make people aware of who we really are. I hope that you take the positives away from this post instead of the negatives, and remind yourself that you matter, you are loved and you are amazing. If any of this has hurt or triggered you I have a list of contacts and helplines you can contact, or you can talk to me. You are not alone.

Thank you, Caitlín xo

[wtffundiefamilies]

For those of you who missed this, this is the doctor whose genius Trump is praising.  As always, bolding is mine for emphasis.

A Houston doctor who praises hydroxychloroquine and says that face masks aren’t necessary to stop transmission of the highly contagious coronavirus has become a star on the right-wing internet, garnering tens of millions of views on Facebook on Monday alone. Donald Trump Jr. declared the video of Stella Immanuel a “must watch,” while Donald Trump himself retweeted the video.

Before Trump and his supporters embrace Immanuel’s medical expertise, though, they should consider other medical claims Immanuel has made—including those about alien DNA and the physical effects of having sex with witches and demons in your dreams.

Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.

She alleges alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments, and that scientists are cooking up a vaccine to prevent people from being religious. And, despite appearing in Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress on Monday, she has said that the government is run in part not by humans but by “reptilians” and other aliens.

Immanuel gave her viral speech on the steps of the Supreme Court at the “White Coat Summit,” a gathering of a handful of doctors who call themselves America’s Frontline Doctors and dispute the medical consensus on the novel coronavirus. The event was organized by the right-wing group Tea Party Patriots, which is backed by wealthy Republican donors.

In her speech, Immanuel alleges that she has successfully treated hundreds of patients with hydroxychloroquine, a controversial treatment Trump has promoted and says he has taken himself. Studies have failed to find proof that the drug has any benefit in treating COVID-19, and the Food and Drug Administration in June revoked its emergency authorization to use it to treat the deadly virus, saying it hadn’t demonstrated any effect on patients’ mortality prospects.

“Nobody needs to get sick,” Immanuel said. “This virus has a cure.”

Immanuel said in her speech that the supposed potency of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment means that protective face masks aren’t necessary, claiming that she and her staff had avoided contracting COVID-19 despite wearing medical masks instead of the more secure N95 masks.

“Hello, you don’t need a mask. There is a cure,” Immanuel said.  

Toward the end of Immanuel’s speech, the event’s organizer and other participants can be seen trying to get her away from the microphone. But footage of the speech captured by Breitbart was a hit online, becoming a top video on Facebook and amassing roughly 13 million views—significantly more than “Plandemic,” another coronavirus disinformation video that became a viral hit online in May, when it amassed roughly 8 million Facebook views.

“Hydroxychloroquine” trended on Twitter, as Immanuel’s video was embraced by the Trumps, conservative student group Turning Point USA, and pro-Trump personalities like Diamond & Silk. But both Facebook and Twitter eventually deleted videos of Immanuel’s speech from their sites, citing rules against COVID-19 disinformation. The deletions set off yet another round of complaints by conservatives of bias at the social-media platforms.

Immanuel responded in her own way, declaring that Jesus Christ would destroy Facebook’s servers if her videos weren’t restored to the platform.

“Hello Facebook put back my profile page and videos up or your computers with start crashing till you do,” she tweeted. “You are not bigger that God. I promise you. If my page is not back up face book will be down in Jesus name.”

Immanuel is a registered physician in Texas, according to a Texas Medical Board database, and operates a medical clinic out of a strip mall next to her church, Firepower Ministries.

Immanuel was born in Cameroon and received her medical degree in Nigeria. In a GoFundMe legal defense fund, which swelled from just $90 to $1,616 hours after her speech, Immanuel claims without offering any proof that members of a Houston networking group for women physicians are scheming to take her medical license away over her support for hydroxychloroquine.

It’s not clear whether anyone is actually trying to take Immanuel’s license. But many of her earlier medical claims are definitely ludicrous.

In sermons posted on YouTube and articles on her website, Immanuel claims that medical issues like endometriosis, cysts, infertility, and impotence are caused by sex with “spirit husbands” and “spirit wives”—a phenomenon Immanuel describes essentially as witches and demons having sex with people in a dreamworld.

“They are responsible for serious gynecological problems,” Immanuel said. “We call them all kinds of names—endometriosis, we call them molar pregnancies, we call them fibroids, we call them cysts, but most of them are evil deposits from the spirit husband,” Immanuel said of the medical issues in a 2013 sermon. “They are responsible for miscarriages, impotence—men that can’t get it up.”

In her sermon, Immanuel offers a sort of demonology of “nephilim,” the biblical characters she claims exist as demonic spirits and lust after dream sex with humans, causing all matter of real health problems and financial ruin. Immanuel claims real-life ailments such as fibroid tumors and cysts stem from the demonic sperm after demon dream sex, an activity she claims affects “many women.”  

“They turn into a woman and then they sleep with the man and collect his sperm,” Immanuel said in her sermon. “Then they turn into the man and they sleep with a man and deposit the sperm and reproduce more of themselves.”

According to Immanuel, people can tell if they have taken a demonic spirit husband or spirit wife if they have a sex dream about someone they know or a celebrity, wake up aroused, stop getting along with their real-world spouse, lose money, or generally experience any hardship.

Alternately, they could just be having dream-sex with a human witch instead of a demon, she posits.

“There are those that are called astral sex,” Immanuel said in the sermon. “That means this person is not really a demon being or a nephilim. It’s just a human being that’s a witch, and they astral project and sleep with people.”

Immanuel’s bizarre medical ideas don’t stop with demon sex in dreams. In a 2015 sermon that laid out a supposed Illuminati plan hatched by “a witch” to destroy the world using abortion, gay marriage, and children’s toys, among other things, Immanuel claimed that DNA from space aliens is currently being used in medicine.

“They’re using all kinds of DNA, even alien DNA, to treat people,” Immanuel said.

Immanuel’s website offers a prayer to remove a generational curse originally received from an ancestor but transmitted, in Immanuel’s telling, through placenta. Immanuel claimed in another 2015 sermon posted that scientists had plans to install microchips in people, and develop a “vaccine” to make it impossible to become religious.

“They found the gene in somebody’s mind that makes you religious, so they can vaccinate against it,” Immanuel said.

Immanuel elaborated on her fascination with witchcraft in her 2015 Illuminati sermon, claiming that witches were intent on seizing control of children.

In her 2015 sermon on the Illuminati’s supposed agenda to bring down the United States, Immanuel argues that a wide variety of toys, books, and TV shows, from Pokémon—which she declares “Eastern demons”—to Harry Potter and the Disney Channel shows Wizards of Waverly Place and That’s So Raven were all part of a scheme to introduce children to spirits and witches. Immanuel warned that the Disney Channel show Hannah Montana was a gateway to evil, because its character had an “alter ego.” She has claimed that schools teach children to meditate so they can “meet with demons.”

In the sermon, Immanuel preserved special vitriol for the Magic 8-Ball, a toy that can be shaken up to “reveal” any answer. Immanuel claims the otherwise innocuous Magic 8-Ball was in fact a scheme to get children used to witchcraft.

“The 8-Ball was a psychic,” she said.

Immanuel’s oddball claims about the world extend to politics. She didn’t bring up this allegation publicly in Washington, but she has claimed that the American government is run in part by non-human reptilians.

“There are people that are ruling this nation that are not even human,” Immanuel said in her 2015 Illuminati sermon, before launching into a conversation she had with a “reptilian spirit” she described as “half-human, half-ET.”

Immanuel has also used her pulpit to preach hatred of LGBT people. Shortly before the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, Immanuel warned her flock that gay marriage meant that “very soon people are going to be seeking to marry children” and accused gay Americans of practicing “homosexual terrorism.” In the same sermon, she praised a father’s decision to not love his transgender son after a gender transition.

“You know the crazy part?” Immanuel said. “The little girl demands he must love her anyway. Really? You will not get it from me, I’d be like ‘Little girl, when you come back to be a little girl again, but you talk—for now, I’m gone.’”

Unusually for a pediatrician, Immanuel has praised corporal punishment for children. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes corporal punishment, and claims that the “vast majority” of pediatricians do not recommend it.

“Children need to be whipped,” she declared in a 2015 sermon, before adding that she didn’t think children should be “abused.”

It’s also not clear that Immanuel has abided by her claims that face masks aren’t necessary. In her Washington speech, Immanuel claimed that she and her medical staff had avoided any COVID-19 infections while wearing only medical masks. But in two videos shot at her clinic, Immanuel appears to be wearing an N95 mask, which offers more protection.

Immanuel has also alleged that masks of all kinds are superfluous, because she says COVID-19 can be easily cured with hydroxychloroquine. But in a Facebook video advertising her clinic, Immanuel said anyone seeking treatment should wear a face mask before entering the clinic.

“Wear a mask, or a scarf, or anything to cover your face,” Immanuel said in the video.

Immanuel has seized on her newfound celebrity, tweeting a video demanding that CNN hosts and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases chief Anthony Fauci give her jars of their urine so she can test if they’re secretly taking hydroxychloroquine even as they caution against its use.

“I double dog dare y’all give me a urine sample,” Immanuel tweeted in her challenge.

Now Immanuel is angling for the key rite of passage for any budding MAGA-world personality: a visit to the Trump White House. Late Monday night, Immanuel tweeted that she was open to meeting the president.

“Mr President I’m in town and available,” she tweeted. “I will love to meet with you.”

[tptruepolitics]

LGBT Thoughts

Netflix has recently decided to push transgender ideologies in their Babysitters Club series – a show directed at adolescent girls. While Netflix – an independent company that should only have to answer to itself and its shareholders – is perfectly within their rights to air such shows, the fact remains that this is a deeply damaging topic to be showcasing to the most vulnerable and malleable among us. I think it’s time we finally address the enormous elephant in the room: the LGBT community. Here I will break down my thoughts on their rights, their roles, and their realities in our society.

For much of history, there have been documented incidences of same-sex encounters. Even the Bible makes reference to same-sex relations numerous times. The word sodomy is actually originated from one such text from Genesis in reference to the city of Sodom. Shakespeare is even rumored to have been gay by some scholars. However, for most of human existence, these individuals were forced to live in secret – outcasts of society, ostracized by their own people. To be perfectly fair, religious extremism has only contributed to the past 2-4 thousand years of ridicule. Before that, it was still frowned upon (at best) by most cultures simply because it went against the laws of nature. Male and female animals and even plant parts reproduce in union with one another. There are no same-sex reproductive organisms to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong). There are asexual organisms that reproduce by themselves, but certainly no major animal species that reproduce in any extraordinary way. There is a certain species of bird, I believe, that lives in Hawaii (once again, correct me if I’m wrong) that sometimes chooses a same-sex partner for life in the absence of a proper mate, but this is certainly an exception, not a rule. To add, they do not reproduce together.

But what does all this mean for humans? How should the “laws of nature” or even God’s laws apply to humans in this age of constant progressivism and an increasing detachment from religiosity that we call secularism? Well, thankfully, in our country and many around the world we are allowed the freedoms to live our lives as we see fit as long as they don’t infringe on the rights and liberties of others. So, if someone chooses to live outside the bounds of religious or natural laws, they certainly should be allowed to, as long as they are minding their own business. This concept of allowing homosexuality was highly contested up until the late 20th century, and is still somewhat contested today in 2020. The original founders felt that upholding moral and ethical truths in our school systems were an integral part of maintaining our precious union. As a matter of fact, the often-misrepresented “separation of church and state” clause did not mean that religion could not be learned about in schools, but that the federal government had no right to establish a State religion (capital S). Most of the founders actually encouraged religious teachings and values in schools. The more modern interpretations of the separation of church and state are due to an influx of not only secular ideologies, but also religious beliefs that were not prevalent during the time of our founding. While I am a firm believer that no harm can come from learning about religious values in schools, in this age of progressivism it is reasonable to note that certain contentious religious principles need not be forced upon others. This would be a clear infringement of the separation of church and state.

So, to get specific, let’s talk homosexuality. A common misconception in the eyes of secularists is that the Church (I’ll speak specifically about Catholicism here) preaches that homosexuality is a sin – that simply being gay is a sin against God. Well, this isn’t true. The Church expressly teaches that acting out homosexual fantasies is a sin. Let’s say, you are a man who is attracted to other men, but in your devotion to your religion, you find a woman whom you love, marry her, and live your life without having sex with another man. Is this man sinful, because he finds men attractive? Of course he is not! When you feel like strangling someone, but then you calm down and don’t, are you guilty of murder? No. So, simply being gay is not a sentence to Hell. As a matter of fact, even in the eyes of the Church, acting on your homosexual impulses isn’t a death sentence. There is reconciliation and forgiveness in the eyes of the Lord. If you confess your sin and repent for it, you are seen as forgiven. Not to mention, there are people who sin in every aspect of life: liars, swindlers, thieves, murderers – and I’m not even just talking about big sins. Small sins add up, and if you are not repentant of them, you are not any more likely to get to Heaven. However, I will paraphrase this, but I believe there is a Scripture saying that says you will be judged by your worst qualities. So, if you work hard your whole life to be a good Christian, and your only flaw is that you are a wonton whore, a light will be shown on this most vulnerable area.

You might be thinking to yourself, “but it’s a genetic mutation that causes some people to like members of the same sex. God would not have built natural urges in us if he didn’t want us to act on them.” Well, that’s just ridiculous. We have natural urges and desires that are built into us that we are meant to fight off all the time: anger, greed, and jealousy to name a few. Lust is just one more urge that is built into our nature, and it happens to come in all shapes and sizes. Our animalistic desire is not only to have as much sex as possible, but to have it with as many things as possible. Evidence of this is your dog, if you have one. Dogs will regularly hump humans due to a natural urge they have. Should the dog be doing this? Should humans all of a sudden be accepting of bestiality? Maybe don’t answer that one. Now that I’ve gotten a bit off topic, I’ll try to bring this all back. Yes, acting on your homosexual desires is a sin in many Christian churches. However, your homosexuality does nothing to harm me or my church, and as such, I believe firmly that if you wish you act on those temptations, you should be legally allowed to.

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual peoples should not be deprived of their right to happiness, which can include uniting themselves in lawful union. That being said, I would like to advocate for an alteration in the name of the union. With the full rights, advantages and privileges of a married male and female couple, I would like to revoke the name “gay marriage” and return to the previously used “civil union” terminology. Marriage is a religious term that has been secularized over decades to include all unions whether inside or outside of a church between a man and a woman. I propose that all unions made outside of the boundaries of a religious ceremony be labeled civil unions, reserving the term marriage to those unions made within the boundaries of a religious ceremony. Civil unions will differ from Marriages in name only as to lay to rest the disagreements of many over this divisive issue. Thus, men and women, women and women, and men and men united solely by a judge will no longer be “married” but “united”. Those churches that allow gay marriages in their communities are by no means precluded from including them or precluded from calling them whatever they wish. However, legally, in the eyes of the state, a same-sex couple “married” in their churches will be viewed as “united” under the law. This is a semantic issue, as opposed to a legal issue. The semantics are clearly important on this issue and have been increasingly becoming more important as time goes on. I may not feel it is right to legally prevent people from enjoying their lives in whatever manners they please, but I do feel it is within my purview to define terms in order to ease tensions.

With regards to the transgender community, I have immense sympathy and respect for your feelings. Feeling like you don’t fit into the gender roles that your biology dictates can be frustrating, confusing and upsetting. I know. During my high school years, I often noted to myself that I had feminine characteristics that I didn’t understand. In some ways, I felt that I didn’t share many of the masculine interests of my friends. However, because I was surrounded by many fine men who were very accepting of my differences, I never felt that I didn’t belong with them. Here is the reality of the situation. Many people are not surrounded by these positive influences, and thereby feel that they need to re-identify themselves in order to fit into their social environments. This is not the case. Acceptance, toleration and understanding are the keys to solving this problem. Our attention with regard to the gender debate should be redirected towards Gender Stereotypes. At one point, I was under the impression that we were heading in the right direction. In a very enlightening high school class, I was challenged to think about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. When I did this, I came up with many gender stereotypes that not only did not describe many of my peers, but also did not describe myself. Instead of concluding that I did not belong to my gender, however, I concluded that the stereotypes were the crux of the inconsistencies. At one point in history, gender roles were necessary for survival – the strong (men) went on the hunt, and the tender (women) cared for the children. They were important distinctions. This is not the case anymore! Over time, as technology and society developed to the point where strict gender roles were no longer necessary, women’s rights and roles in society began to change. This was a good thing and is a testament to how incredible our society has been for the less advantaged. These roles still play a part in our daily lives and still affect who we are, but they do not define us exclusively. Take Apples for example. The stereotype of an Apple is a red, juicy, sweet fruit. However, there are apples that are yellow, juicy and sweet. There are also apples that are green, juicy and tart. Is the yellow apple a mango now? Is the green apple a lime? No, their genetics limit them to the fruitful existence that they are. Nevertheless, biology dictates what type of fruit they are and not their characteristics; their characteristics don’t change the underlying biology.

To solve the issue of gender, some people on the progressive aisle have attempted to remove gender. I instead propose to remove the stereotypes/roles! This of course leads to inconsistencies in the Pride movement as a whole. For example, an exclusively lesbian woman might marry another woman who decides later that she is a man. Is this first woman heterosexual now, or should she be upset and betrayed and break off the marriage? Are you confused yet? This removal of gender is not only confusing to adults, but it’s confusing to children, and for them, it is dangerous. When you pose a child with the option to choose his/her gender identity, they will ask you what the differences are. Your response will undoubtedly be gender stereotypes. You are doing no one any favors by perpetuating these gender roles. The child will treat this as something fun, like a game. However, once you begin to treat it as something serious, the child will begin to treat it seriously. This is what major networks and schools and parents are beginning to do. Once you begin to treat your child as if they are not their biological sex, they will begin to accept that reality, more so to please you than anything else. This could have unimaginable consequences on their sense of self later in life, which could lead to self-esteem issues, learning disabilities, depression or worse. And making life-altering changes to your children i.e. long-term gender therapy, hormone treatments, or surgeries could permanently hurt them mentally and physically.

Conversely, if your little boy tells you one day that he is a girl, tell him, “No, you’re not a girl, you’re a boy. As a boy, you can be whoever you want to be, like whatever you want to like, and all of those characteristics will make you who you are.” If you tell your little boy that, there is an increased likelihood that he will have a more accepting view of others who are different from him, and will have a more positive outlook of himself. You can be a man who loves to sew, wear frilly clothing, and fixes his own car. You can be a woman who lifts weights, works on a construction site, and watches soap operas. They are not mutually exclusive. This also includes those members of our communities that wish to fully engage in their historical gendered roles. Women, who want nothing but to read, write, sew, be homemakers, and do the multitude of other activities that are considered feminine, should not be shamed into thinking that their choices are not valuable, are backwards, or are in anyway damaging to womanhood. Women who have no interest in science should not be shamed into believing that their lives are a waste and that they are giving in to the patriarchal oppression of women. This is not productive. Similarly, this standard applies to men, who should not be shamed into thinking that jobs that only use their hands are not worthy of respect because they do not require a college education. They should not be shamed into the common misconception that men are brutes, only caring about power and control. Men who are not interested in fashion design or cleaning are not uncreative or lazy. All humans have different interests and strengths.

The characteristics we have as human beings are largely taught to us. Generosity is taught, openness is taught. Negative things, as well: greed, sloth – they are learned. Selfishness is a learned characteristic. As a society, we have failed our younger generations. Parents, teachers, the government, and the media have all failed. To teach a child that they are so important that they have the ability to defy nature and choose their gender breeds self-centeredness and pride beyond compare. How selfish of us, how pompous! We are not that important. We are not able to create our own meaning. Our meaning is a gift bestowed upon us by a higher power. Who or what that higher power is, is for each and every man and woman to decide on their own, but a society based on the premise that they determine their own worth is doomed to fail because it is founded on the ideal that the self is the most important entity. This is not to contradict our founding principles concerning the individual. Those principles concern how government should act in relation to its people. The concept of self-importance, to which I’m referring, concerns how individuals view themselves and act in spite of the government.

 So, no, I don’t think that Netflix or schools should be teaching students, especially against the wills of their parents, that being a boy when you’re a girl or vice versa is acceptable. We should not be teaching children that biology can just be ignored. If we allowed this aspect of biology to be ignored, other aspects of biology may be ignored in the future (like age!). Nor do I think that sexual preference should be celebrated in public schools. This goes against the separation of church and state in a different manner, because teaching children that their religious observances of sin are incorrect is a direct interference with the practice of a religion. This would be a world where secularism becomes the state religion and that would be no more acceptable than some form of theism. Have no shame for who you are, but don’t put down other peoples’ views to make yourself feel better. Respect should be taught of all our children before they leave the home for school.

Here is my final message. Acceptance of self, love of one another, and understanding of our differences, should reign supreme.

[uranianrights]

When different writers from the period have mentioned Kraft-Ebing, it has been in pretty different ways, but I found this quote in the appendix of The Intermediate Sex which seems to cast some light over the issue:

Sexual inversion has usually been regarded as psycho-pathological, as a symptom of degeneration; and those who exhibit it have been considered as physically unfit. This view, however, is falling into disrepute, especially as Krafft-Ebing, its principal champion, abandoned it in the later editions of his work.

- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character. 1906

This clears up for me how his earlier statements square together with his later advocacy against antisodomy laws. 

In 1879, Ulrichs wrote in Critische Pfeile, the last part of his series of pamphlets on uranians:

My scientific opponents are mostly psychiatrists. They are, for example, Westphal, Krafft-Ebing, Stark. They made their observations on Urnings who were in institutions for the mentally ill. They appear not to have seen mentally healthy Urnings. The rest follow the published views of the psychiatrists.

Which is to say, he regarded Krafft-Ebing as an opponent. 

Hubert Kennedy, Ulrichs biographer, writes:

Ironically, the man who became the major proponent of the sickness model of homosexuality, Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840–1902), became interested in studying the subject precisely as a result of reading Ulrichs’s writings, as he explicitly stated in a letter to Ulrichs of January 29, 1879 (Critische Pfeile, 92). Already in 1877, Krafft-Ebing had written that Ulrichs was “afflicted with this perverse drive” and that Ulrichs “still has not furnished proof that he, as an inborn phenomenon, is eo ipso a physiological and not perhaps a pathological one” (Krafft-Ebing 1877, 305–306). With only a slight change in the wording, this statement was included in his Psychopathia sexualis (1886, 58) and it remained in all later editions of this perennial bestseller. 

Although Krafft-Ebing became interested in the subject because of Ulrichs, his understanding of it was rather along the lines of the degeneration theory of Bénédict Auguste Morel (1809–1873), as presented by Morel in 1857. This is shown already in the title of Krafft-Ebing’s 1877 work, which may be translated: “On certain anomalies of the moral drive and the clinical-forensic evaluation of them as a probable functional sign of degeneration of the central nervous system.” Nevertheless, Giovanni Dall’Orto sees a positive influence of Ulrichs on Krafft-Ebing, in that Krafft-Ebing “softened, thanks to him, the original premise, which saw in the homosexual a serious degenerate, and a criminal for life” (Dall’Orto 1985, 66).

Seeing as this mentions Krafft-Ebing never editing out the part about homosexuality “likely being pathological rather than inborn” I’m not sure what edits, exactly, he did make. I suppose that even in thinking it a “biological error” -- as he did all sex not turned to procreation -- he may still have expressed himself less damningly on the subject. 

At any rate, historian Harry Oosterhuis writes about Krafft-Ebing:

Krafft-Ebing’s overall attitude became more and more lenient and humanitarian: from the early 1890s he opposed the penalisation of homosexual acts and he was among the first to sign Hirschfeld’s petition advocating the abolition of Section 175 of the German legal code, which made so-called ‘unnatural vice’ punishable. In his last article on homosexuality, published in Hirschfeld’s Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen [Yearbook for Intermediate Sexual Types], Krafft-Ebing admitted that his earlier views on the immoral and pathological nature of homosexuality had been one-sided and that there was truth in the point of view of many of his homosexual correspondents who asked for sympathy and compassion

And while I can no longer find the source, I have once seen a quote where Ulrichs, shortly before his dead, expressed great hope at Krafft-Ebing support for the petition to repeal Paragraph 175, seeing it as a sign that his words were finally being heard, years after he had retired from his advocacy.