#but I get that when it comes to cishet people and how gay people are presented to them the standards are different

[velvetvexations]

Note: I discuss CSA and rape towards the end.

Indeed. To say trans women are killed because we're trans women is a true statement that is also deeply misleading. We are killed for the same reason gay men are killed, and gay men are killed less now because of massive social change, but they're still killed and historically they were killed by the bushel. The animus towards trans women is an extension of the same morality and base instincts that lead to it being open season on gay cis men in the past. We are trans women and we are killed for that reason theoretically, but this does not mean that the internal motivation is not the same when it comes to killing queers AMAB.

The disconnect between rates of murder for trans women and gay men were similar in the past, and the disconnect now exists because they've only just started to separate the two categories at all, and while gay men have become more socially accepted, trans women are still struggling for even the limited acceptance gay men have gotten.

The reason why the two categories did not achieve this at the same time is largely because being trans is more of an imposition on others - using the correct pronouns, placing the ASAB you're not attracted to in the category you are, more visibly departing from norms when someone that was clearly AMAB is wearing women's clothing, and it actively requiring medical treatment for children in most cases. It's not like you have to watch two gay men have sex, though Lord knows some still act like that. Also, cis gay people are far greater in number, and have relatively more power and security as a result.

TRFs will take this and say I'm claiming it's all just "misandry," and to be clear, I'm not. To interpret it that way is, if not deliberately malicious, and it is but let's just be generous, not seeing the forest for the trees. Gay men and trans women are killed for being AMAB and queer. It's the queerness. That interacts with being AMAB, whether it be cis gay men or trans women. Queers AMAB provoke the most visceral and loud disgust because it's a direct assault on cis men's insecurity that they, too, could be fags.

Just look at sexual assault statistics. While they're fairly close overall, and both leagues above cis people, the fact of the matter is that if they saw us as women the SA stats for trans women WOULD be higher. But it isn't. Because cishet men generally don't want to fuck people they see as men.

Let me tell you a story. My aunt was sexually abused as a child by her father. For as long as my mom lived, she resented her for it. She also had NPD as I do, and she saw it as her sister being chosen over her. It's deeply sad. That's how my mother took it and it colored their relationship forever.

It's an especially pathetic and sad example of wanting desperately to be taken as a woman when a transradfem insists that the data is simply lying. Given how little they think of transmasc's status as trans people, it comes off as a weird fucked up jealousy similar to my mother and aunt, who were, of course, cis. It's not unique to trans women, but the fact that trans men are seen as women by cis society to the point of their rate of sexual abuse being higher twists the knife for some of them.

Trans women are murdered more often because they're seen as men and trans men are raped more often because they're seen as women. If we can't accept that baseline fact about why people get in their heads to hate us we're all going to die.

Okay first off please don't take this the wrong way I promise I'm not trying to say trans women all have male privilege or something. I think it is perhaps important to consider that while trans women do make up the majority of trans homicide victims, generally (cis) men make up the majority of homicide victims. In 2020 in the US, men made up 82% of victims.

I think trans women being killed more than trans men isn't necessarily because of transmisogyny being so strong or w/e, but a combination of people being more okay with killing people *they view as* men, and because transfems are much more likely to be sex workers than transmascs (though that may be caused by transmisogyny). Gay men are also killed at much higher rates than lesbians, and usually most homophobic rhetoric and laws and tropes are targeting gay men specifically, but I haven't seen this used to say lesbians have it significantly better, or have structural power over gay men, the way I have seen the same used to say that about trans men

Obviously, trans women are not men and trans men are not women, but to transphobes enacting violence, they are. Imo, it's important to keep in mind that transphobes do not actually view trans people as the gender that they are, and this means that the mistreatment of us will mirror the mistreatment of the gender we are transitioning away from, not towards.

I'm not saying that trans men have it worse, or that trans women all secretly have male privilege or something, just that less overt obvious violence towards trans men does not mean we have it significantly better, just as lesbians facing less overt obvious violence does not mean they have it much better than gay men. If you argue that gay cis men have it worse than lesbian cis women because of this, fair enough, that's consistent, but you can't define male privilege as "the privilege men of any group will always have over women of the same group all else being equal" if you do. (Or you could argue cis gay men are also affected by transmisogyny, I guess?)

Genuinely please don't bite my head off for saying transphobes don't actually view trans women as women (and vice versa) and that affects how they're treated skdkfkdjxhd if you have a good faith criticism of this post I'm all ears

[yuridovewing]

i understand the frustration with “i made this gay pairing cis x trans so they can still have biological babies” with no thought to other methods and how ppl assume thats the case when it comes to mothpool aus where mothwing is also the mother of the three, but also…. idk i kinda dont give a shit if someone wants to do that and i dont really think its inherently transphobic as long as its handled with care and respect.

what really concerns me about this debate is how some people are adamant that you cannot portray trans people having biological children in media or youre being disrespectful. and im gonna say as a nonbinary person who doesnt want children for themself- thats kinda fucking weird? like i understand that for some people, theyre trans themselves and theyre speaking from a place of dysphoria, and i absolutely get that, which is why i think the topic should be handled with nuance and diversity in trans characters, but like…. guys. pregnant trans men exist irl. trans women get people pregnant irl. trans ppl’s ability and right to parent and have biological children are being debated irl. we get denied the opportunity to adopt as well.

in a climate like this, are we SURE we want the stance on rewrites and headcanons in the silly cat books to be “if you portray trans characters having children, especially with a gay couple, youre a transphobic freak no matter what!” does it really matter? especially if its being done by a trans person handling the topic with nuance who has a lot of trans characters with varying perspectives?

obviously yes, remember that thats not the only way certain gay couples can have kids, remember that not every trans person is fully comfortable with it and keep that in mind, remember that surrogacy and adoption are also perfectly valid ways to give fan babies- but remember that there are OPTIONS. not that you need to condemn the idea of transgender parents in the first place unless they fit the very specific criteria of “proper transgender representation” and anything that dares deviate from that is proof the op is a transphobic monster (bonus points if theyre a trans creator bc i mostly see trans people getting shit for this and it kinda pisses me off. although idm if cis people do it either as long as theyre handling it with respect)

[seilon]

pro: ran into a coworker at a bar last night who I don’t really talk to usually (he works upstairs, I work downstairs) and we talked and im pretty sure we were highkey flirting and he bought me a drink and the bar merch shirt i was interested in and thanks to the power of alcohol i guess i asked for his number and he gladly gave it to me and. yeah

con: i have the second worst hangover i have ever had and have been fighting for my fucking life just to eat saltines

[boyquiet]

What counts as queer rep? If you're only talking about subtext then you have to ask if it's really rep or if you have a colored view of the character in question. The thing about MGS is that it's not afraid to label it's queer characters as such, like vamp, Dr Strangelove, Volgin. Confirmed in canon is what I consider representation otherwise the plot gets misunderstood or motivations are misunderstood. Everything else is just interpretation, which is loose and subjective so not true rep since the subtext may be unintentional. A character isn't queer just because fans think so or want it, it has to be confirmed before it's Valid representation.

I get how you feel but the point I’m trying to get at is that too many people are concerned with what counts as Good and Valid Representation and scrutinizing every character who might be queer under a microscope so they can determine whether or not the character said enough gay things and give the work Validity Points. I agree that there is a difference between intentional and unintentional subtext but at the end of the day there’s no true way to tell aside from word of god, and subtext is subtext and not text for a reason, so the viewer can come to their own conclusions without having everything spelled out for them, and I think it can be degrading to storytelling to suggest that subtext is an invalid form of representation. I agree that it is important to have more textually canon queer people in media, but to me the idea that every queer character has to be confirmed as gay on screen and behave in an acceptable way to be considered Valid is harmful to storytelling—subtext is an important tool for all writers. I like MGS because there are queer characters on all levels of text ranging from “up to the viewer” to “confirmed by word of god” to “explicitly canon” but the levels of “canon” are pretty hotly debated when it comes to characters like bb, kaz and ocelot, so my point of view is to be less concerned with how much evidence there is and try to recognize for myself why the storytelling decisions were made, why some characters get to say they’re bisexual or lesbian but some don’t. And a lot of all of this has to do with the context of the media and the time period and all, like a lot of people try to pick apart every character under a modern lens of what’s acceptable by our current standards. like ocelot doesn’t say “im gay” or kiss big boss because aside from that not being fitting for his character or appropriate for their story, it likely would not be allowed to be made (kojima had to fight his own team to include shots of venom and kaz standing close together), but some people would only be concerned with the fact that he’s not “textually” canonically gay. anyway this is a very long winded way of saying that the “validity” of someone’s textual queerness can be very much up to interpretation, but there are many reasons why a character might be subtextually queer and trying to qualify characters as either Canon and Good or Not Canon and Queerbait is a waste of time that could be spent enjoying a character, and that character sexuality debates should be handled on a case by case basis instead of trying to make a quantifiable scale of how canon something is

[carcinized]

i have srsly had irl queer people make fun of me for being queer + liking sports and tell me that is like, not gay or something. like ok just say youre chronically online. womens soccer is the queerest thing i have ever been a part of hands down. also youre an awful person

[genderqueerdykes]

since a lot of people don't have the opportunity to interact with irl queer spaces, i want to point out yet another reason why "lesbian spaces are for women ONLY" doesn't work. attending a queer space for the first time, especially while questioning your identity, is scary. you don't know the terms or lingo yet, you don't know exactly how you feel about your queer experience, you're still discovering yourself. a lot of people bring friends, or even family, to queer spaces for support. sometimes those friends and family are cishet

the first time i went to my university's pride organization, i took my cishet ally best friend. the first time i went to my current city's trans resource center to ask about starting testosterone HRT, i took my cishet ally best friend. neither time were either of them questioned. nobody saw either of them as a threat. they were welcomed just like i was.

like i don't get why this causes people to hiss like cats, but this is very, very normal, and encouraged because, here's the really important part: when those cishet folks are treated warmly and with an open reception, this creates allies. the most important part of irl queer spaces is the alliance. this part is completely lost in online queer spaces.

my college's pride organization was called "[university]'s Gay/Straight Alliance" this was 15 years ago before we moved toward using "queer" or "LGBT" as an umbrella term and were still using Gay as an umbrella for all queer experiences. the terms could be updated to something more inclusive, but the point still stands that the was on emphasis queer/non queer alliance. you were more than welcome to bring your non-queer friends and family. you were encouraged to come in and ask questions if you were not queer, but wanted to learn more. it was a space that welcomed everyone.

like, sometimes, the supportive ally parents of queer children show up, too, and we have to let them in. why would we ever sacrifice educating cishet parents on how to properly treat their children for the sake of "keeping the space for [identity] ONLY"? why would we deny cishet family members the education they need to gender and address their family members correctly? to learn more about our culture and accept us?

this is the literal lifeblood of our community. we need to open our doors to allies. we need to allow people to bring their friends and families, it's how queerphobes and non queer people come to accept and humanize us. all queer spaces need to be this accepting. and besides, we should never alienate people who are just coming out, or used to identify with a gender that doesn't "Belong" in your community. that's just not how we work around these parts.

[sarasade]

One of the most generally useful things to come out of Hbomberguy's plagiarism video and Todd in the Shadows' similar video on misinformation is how they bring transparency to the internet phenomenon of "I made up a guy to get mad at".

Seriously, I've seen people make up a lot of stupid shit on the internet over the years and it's often just a manipulative attempt to paint a group of marginalized people in a bad light.

That's the TL;DR version of this post. 

ANYWAY here is the long version

Those videos are mostly about James Somerton's plagiarism of other queer people's work. However I'd like to talk about that 20-30% of Somerton's original writing- and oh boy. It's mostly about complaining about White Straight Women and misgendering well-known trans creators such as Rebecca Sugar and calling Becky Albertalli a straight woman while it's pretty common knowledge that she was forced to out herself as bi because she received so much harassment over "being a cishet woman who appropriates LGBT+ stories".

One thing that irks me especially is how in his Killing Stalking and Gay Shipping videos Somerton brings up how straight women/ teen girl shippers exploit gay men for their personal sexual fantasies. This gets brought up several times in his videos.

Being all up and arms about Somerton being a "White Cis Gay Who Hates Women and Queer People tm" is not that useful because the kind of rhetoric he's using is extremely common in fandom and LGBT+ spaces on Tumblr, TikTok and Twitter. We really don't need to bring Somerton's identity to this since he is in no way an unique example.

It's hypocritical to make this about an individual person when I've seen A TON of posts, tweets and videos where queer people talk about these Sinister Straight Women who are supposedly out there fetishizing and exploiting queer men. It's pretty clear to me that this is just an excuse to shit on women and queer people for having any sexual interests. At worst these comments are spreading misinformation about BL, a form of media that has been excessively studied by both Asian feminists and Asian queer women.

This all sounds really familiar and I think it's good that people are calling it out as what it is: misogyny and transphobia. I'd also point out the potentially racist motives behind being this hypervigilant about Asian media.

People can absolutely be misogynist regardless of gender or orientation. I really don't know why we need to create some kind of made up enemy to get mad at. I actually think it's almost sinister how "anti-fujoshi" people call Slash shippers and fujoshi misogynists or claim that they have internalised misogyny while being dismissive about women's interests and creative pursuits under Japanese obscenity laws, China's censorship, book bans in American schools and various other disadvances that are part of being a queer and/or female creator.

I think we shouldn't be naive about the bad faith actors who want to turn queer people against each other. For example Fujoshi.info mentions anti-gender (TERF, GC etc) movement using this kind of rhetoric as well.

Anyway if you want to read more:

- about the false info around BL fandom fujoshi.info

-There is the scholar Thomas Baudinette who studies gay media in Japan. Here is a podcast with him and the scholar Khursten Santos

-James Welker is a BL scholar as well. Here is a podcast interview about the new international BL article collection he edited.

-I've already talked about this Youtube channel by KrisPNatz and his great Killing Stalking video that actually engages with the themes of the manhwa

- There is also HR Coleman's thesis DO NOT FEED THE FETISHIZERS: BOYS LOVE FANS RESISTANCE AND CHALLENGE OF PERCEIVED REPUTATION where she interviews 36 BL fans and actually breaks down why fetishization has become such a huge talking point in the fandom discourse. Spoilers, it's mostly about young queer people and women being worried that they will get judged and pathologized for their interest in anything sexual.

-Great podcast about Danmei and censorship with Liang Ge

[jellyfemmedyke]

sorry to ramble in your inbox but its kinda fucking me up how "trans man with a cishet boyfriend who misgenders him behind his back" is like seen to be a person to make fun of in the general queer tumblr space instead of a person who is in a vulnerable situation. i know that there is trans men who are also women and there are trans men who are genuinely okay with dating a cis man who considers himself straight but people talking about these hypothetical couples arent talking about these situations but rather about "haha stupid trans man doesnt realize hes dating a bigot"

theres this attitude that the hypothetical cishet boyfriend is actually a conservative so it should be obvious to trans man that he doesnt respect his identity but i feel like its less "oh its obvious that this specific man is a bigot" and more "obviously cishet white men are bigots" and its weird how people laugh at this person instead of acknowledging that even if you are dating a bigot its usually not a big win for you personally. like the bigot cishet boyfriend isnt going to be okay with his trans man boyfriend starting testosterone. like we can sympathize with emotional abuse happening towards other groups but when its gay and mspec trans men its like "oh he should have known that would happen" or "its his fault for dating a bigot"?

of course people have the same making fun of the victim narrative with afab nonbinary people who date cishet men who misgender them [and im sure this bleeds over to affecting all nonbinary people if people arbitrarily decide theyre afab if the nonbinary person refuses to tell them personal information about themselves but the larger narrative always specifies that this is an afab person] and its almost like a "this is what you get for being attracted to men" sort of thing.

and also i theres something to be said about warning people for signs their partner or potential partner doesnt respect their identity but considering i imagine its a common anxiety among trans and nonbinary people who are into that sorta thing to wonder "am i ever going to find someone who loves me and is also accepting of me for being [insert gender here]?" its sort of fucked up for it to be common to basically claim "yea if youre dating a cis man who said he was straight before he started dating you but says he respects your identity hes probably just straight up lying to your face" and then laugh at the person getting misgendered for not knowing they were being misgendered.

anyway sorry for this big ramble i cant even remember specific instances of this to reference so i might seem like im making up a guy to be mad at but i swear this is like a general attitude and almost running joke i see around. anyway. have a good day.

I absolutely see that too, and I think it's a mixture of straight up victim blaming, because oh noo how dare you WANT to date *gasp* cis men

but it come with an intense transandrophobia and exorsexism because there's a lot more sympathy when it comes to cis women dating cishet men "poor things uwu" but when it's trans men or in this case non binary people assumed to be women, it's always "see I told you so" smug superiority. (cis women get this too, because of misogyny obviously, but it's different and worse for trans men) People are just waiting for a chance to be misogynistic and trans men are an acceptable target. This is honestly extra fucked up when we remember that trans men experience some of the highest rates of domestic violence and rape in the community though.

being trans is such a vulnerable place to be in, and a lot of people, trans or not are insecure or just want to be loved, that's normal. A lot of people are willing to accept certain behaviors from their partners that are bad, because of those reasons as well, victim blaming, and ESPECIALLy telling trans men to toughen up or "what did you expect" is apart of the toxic expectations that get placed of trans men as well. I could honestly go on for hours about this. good ask,anon

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

would you like to tell us about your research on virginity?

but also...wdym STIs aren't as scary as we think??? I was told most of them are incurable? I know you can make aids untrasmittable and that they've even succeded in curing it a couple times but that's about it. I would love to be educated about this

yeah, the basic idea with the virginity project was that the whole concept of virginity is pretty bullshit in the context in which it was initially significant, namely cisgender women being penetrated by cisgender men, so as soon as you take it outside of that context by introducing gay and trans sexuality it totally falls apart. I mean, hell, it stops working if you even look at two cishet people doing literally anything OTHER than penis-in-vagina sex. I tripped up so many people initially when I started asking questions like "okay, so you don't think a woman loses her virginity from a man going down on her. so what if it's two women? what's the difference?" and just really getting people to face down their very penis-centered view of the sex, to the result of several people telling me that it kind of made them reevaluate what they actually think of as the first time they had sex. it's also fascinating to either read other people's accounts or discuss firsthand how queer people have either tried to make themselves fit into the binary of virginity - queer man disagreeing over whether or not you have to have penetrative anal sex to lose your virginity or oral sex is sufficient, a fascinating case of a lesbian who felt that have sex with other cis women didn't "count" and asked a cis male friend to have sex with her just so she could feel satisfied that she'd lost her virginity - or abandon it entirely. Hanne Blank's book Virgin was a formative starting point, and it really exploded for me from there.

as for the STIs - hey, bad news! you fell victim to the scare tactics used to make people afraid of sex! almost all sexually transmitted infections are very easy to treat and cure with the right medicine, which is why it's important to get tested regularly and check in with your healthcare provider at the first sign of something amiss. pubic lice, scabies, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis - all of those are pretty easy to get rid of with some help from your doctor and a run to the pharmacy!

the major exceptions are the 4 H's: herpes, HIV, HPV, and hepatitis B.

herpes is with you forever but is an incredibly mild companion to share your body with, considering most people never experience any notable symptoms and those who do can curb the severity with medicine.

it's also worth noting that herpes is so common as to be virtually ubiquitous; the World Health Organization consistently estimates that somewhere around 80% of the world's adult population is carrying herpes simplex virus 1 or herpes simplex virus 2. a great deal of those people don't even get it from having sex, but rather by catching HSV-1 from a parent or other people they come is close contact with as a child.

you're actually thinking of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) when you mention AIDS becoming untransmittable, but that's still a very good thing! the care available for people with HIV has come incredibly far since AIDS first became known and claimed so many lives, and today it's more than possible for people infected with HIV to live long, healthy lives by taking the proper medication to manage their viral load.

with management, people with HIV will not develop AIDS (which happens when the immune system is sufficiently depleted by HIV) and by consistently taking their medication people with HIV can become undetectable (the viral load in their body is too small to be detected or measured in tests), at which point they are unable to transmit the virus to other people.

HPV (human paillomavirus) comes in many different strains, most of which are absolutely harmless and go away on their own after a couple of months or years of freeloading in your body. I cannot emphasize this enough: HPV is so common that virtually everyone who has sex has, will have, or has had it in their lives, and the vast, VAST majority of those people will never be troubled by it literally at all.

the trouble comes from a few strains of HPV that can cause genital warts, and a few others that can cause cancers in the throat, anus, cervix, vulva, vagina, and penis. while HPV can't be treated, you can reduce your risk of developing cancer by getting the HPV vaccine if you haven't already and, if you have a cervix, getting regular Pap smears to catch early warning signs of cancerous developments.

hepatitis B is a viral infection that targets the liver. in rare cases it can cause chronic health problems that can be very dangerous, but I have to emphasize that's not common. in most adults who get hep B, there will be no symptoms and it will resolve itself in a matter of weeks. the infection is riskiest in children, but at least in America most people have received vaccines against hepatitis B as babies since the 90s.

in conclusion: get your shots, take your medicine, use protection, get tested, and talk to your doctor, but know that if there's one thing humans are good at it's figuring out how to manage STIs. we've been doing it for a long time - most sexually transmitted infections and parasites have been with us since before we we became modern humans - so we're really good at it!

[lurkingshan]

I absolutely loved the first two episodes of Love in the Big City, and I thought all of the adaptation choices were brilliant, but the part that hit me most as I was watching and that my mind keeps circling back to relates to this question from @bengiyo:

In the novel, we see everything through Young's rather biting and cynical internal monologue, while in the drama we see other characters through a broader lens. With this different perspective, how does Mi Ae's outing of Go Yeong and the fallout change compared to the novel?

I think for me, this shift that allowed us to see Mi Ae outside of Yeong's perspective enhanced my empathy for her and for the choices she made. Because it all comes back to this quote, originally from the novel and used verbatim in the show:

"Through me, she learned that being a gay man sucks, and through her, I learned that being a woman equally sucks."

Yeong and Mi Ae connected with each other because they were both living outside the accepted norms and were isolated and lonely as a result. The forms of oppression they experienced were not the same, but it was a point of connection and the foundation of their deep bond. They fell in love with each other because of their shared choice to be themselves loudly, and fuck the social consequences. They were each other's most important person, regardless of who they were dating. And so when Mi Ae, shaken up after her abortion and exhausted by trying to fight the social tide, made the choice to stop being true to herself and conform, of course Yeong felt abandoned. And then when she outed him to protect her conformity, betrayed.

In the novel, we learn about Mi Ae (Jaehee) outing Yeong (Young) from him, and it's presented to us as a callous betrayal, because that's how it felt to him. But in the show, we get to see Mi Ae make that decision. We see how cornered she felt when her boyfriend confronted her about the lies she'd been telling, we see his genuine (justified) upset at learning she'd been living with a man he doesn't know, we see her panicking and reaching for something to smooth it over, and we can see that in the moment, it feels reasonable to her to tell her partner the truth. We can see that it wasn't malicious, and she did not intend to hurt Yeong.

But it still hurts, because in making that decision, she implicitly acknowledged that Yeong is no longer her most important person. Someone else, or at least the idea of what he represents, became her top priority, and she protected her romantic relationship rather than protecting Yeong. She still loved Yeong, but she wouldn't put him first any longer, and when she made that choice their relationship as they knew it was over. Mi Ae was ultimately captivated by the allure of social acceptance, and she chose a path of conformity that was not open to Yeong--she is, after all, a cishet woman and able to revert to societal expectations much more easily than Yeong ever could as a gay man who would struggle to pass even if he wanted to. Her choice was confirmation that, in fact, their situations do not equally suck, and she retreated to her privileged identity, leaving him behind.

And so we come to the scene that punched me in the heart more than any other in this first section: the two of them singing together at her wedding, taking one last glorious moment to be themselves again in front of people who would never understand them. In that moment I felt so sad for Yeong, that this relationship that meant so much to him was irrevocably changed, and for Mi Ae, that she abandoned these aspects of herself out of fear and committed herself to a man who looked stunned to see a glimpse of the real her. And more than anything, I felt sad about how isolating and alienating it feels to simply exist in the margins of what is socially acceptable, that conforming is always the easier choice for those who can hide, and that Yeong was once again left to struggle alone.

[catnippackets]

disclaimer: as a sex-repulsed aroace person myself--

on one hand, there is definitely a bit of a double standard when it comes to handling canonically queer characters like, from what I've seen in the circles that I frequent (if you've had different experiences then great but I'm just telling it how I see it). for example, you're morally reprehensible if you ship a canon lesbian with a man or refer to a canon bi character as a lesbian. people will be so angry with you. and it's understandable, since there's so little queer rep in comparison to cishet rep that when there IS a rare actual queer character, the unofficial rule is "don't take that away from them when you add more headcanons to them". like, respect that this one is REAL and NOT just a headcanon. I think it makes perfect sense to feel upset when people take that away, even if it is just fiction and not even canon to the original source. and yet, whenever there exists a canon asexual character suddenly it's all "oh well asexual people can still have sex so it's fine if we headcanon THIS canon sexuality as something different". it makes me feel so genuinely heartache-y and depressed to see ppl ignoring that aspect of a character.

and by "canon" I'm also including characters that were never specifically referred to with a label but are very obviously coded as something, because those characters will still get the "even if it's not stated it's pretty obvious!!" treatment when it comes to showing attraction to the same gender, but not when they DON'T show attraction to any gender. like aro and/or ace coding just doesn't count. I understand that it's kind of hard to represent an absence of something, especially when you're only implying it and not even directly showing it, but it's not impossible. there's a lot of characters that you could argue are aroace coded the same way you could argue a character is gay coded. obviously to a degree every queer identity gets disrespected in fandom and it's something you just kinda have to deal with, but it's easier to notice when it's something you personally relate to. I don't think it would bother me as much if we didn't have that unofficial "respect the canon" rule and everyone just went wild with whatever, but the double standard does genuinely hurt me, especially when I see people I thought were cool about this stuff participating in it. so whenever I see someone fiercely defending an asexual character it really makes me feel good, like I'M being defended, not a random fictional character that I might not even recognize the name of. I feel safe, like that person will respect ME.

THAT BEING SAID,

AS a sex-repulsed aroace person who enjoys thinking about the entire spectrum of intimacy and where a character may fall exactly on that spectrum, ALSO as a person who is aware that "asexual" simply means "does not experience sexual attraction" and not necessarily "is violently repulsed by anything sexual", sometimes I DO want to play out scenarios for my own enjoyment. sometimes I DO want to think hm I wonder where this ace character's line is, compared to a different ace character. I wonder if there is anyone who would be an exception for them, and how they could go about dealing with that exception. I wonder if they're favourable, neutral, or repulsed. if those aspects of their character aren't explicitly stated then what's to stop me from playing around with them and working through my own issues in a controlled and non-canon environment? if they have the same identity as me, I am way more likely to want to play around with them like a doll and perhaps play out scenarios that I might have thought about before but don't actually want to do for real. I'm not taking away their identity, after all; I'm just, in this scenario, imagining this ace character as an ace that might have sex on at least one occasion for whatever reason. either just to try it, or because they do have someone they'd make an exception for, or if they got bored enough, whatever the reason. it isn't quite disrespecting their truth unless it's explicitly stated either in canon or by word of god that it's something they're uncomfortable with. and to be honest, if I see another asexual creator headcanoning a character as somewhere on the asexual spectrum and depicting them in sexual situations, it makes me almost happy, to know that they're still acknowledging that character's canon identity and accepting and exploring the nuance that could come with it, even if I personally believe that this specific character would be repulsed instead of neutral or favourable. there's this understanding of "I'm doing a character study exploration thing", and not "I don't care I just wanna sexualize this character"

but I literally feel GUILTY when I want to write what is essentially a thinkpiece disguised as a fanfiction or original story on asexuality and take an asexual character (canon or coded) and involve them in sexual situations to explore different avenues of the spectrum. I feel like I'm betraying everyone who's like me and is frustrated with how aroace characters are treated within fandom. I'm like "am I being just as bad as those other people who will disrespect a character's canon sexuality just because they think that character is hot and want to ship them with someone? do they do the same thing with other types of queer characters? how does this reflect that person's view of people, if they're explicitly told someone feels a certain way and decides to ignore it for their own amusement? or is it just because they're fictional and not real people and I'm being really sensitive and thinking way too much into it? am I not doing the exact same thing? do I have more credence to explore scenarios like this because I am aroace and sex-repulsed myself and therefore have a pass to do whatever I want and it won't come off as a little weird the way it might if someone who's allosexual did it?"

and these two opinions are at war in my mind constantly. like both of them can and do co-exist but I still struggle to accept that lol

[washedoutwings]

hey guys!! just want to clear some stuff up when it comes to being aspec :)

recently we’ve been seeing some veeeeerrryyyyy incorrect takes, such as the following screenshot (no i didn’t blur the name, think of this as a blocklist for you)

as an arospec ace collective, we feel like we’re in a pretty good position to address this. this also isn’t the only person we’ve seen say stuff like this, but we don’t feel like hunting down other harmful takes :)

firstly, if we’re being loud it’s because we aren’t being heard.

[this is literally just how activism works, but go off ig?? -💖🐘]

secondly, who are you to comment on our struggles? we’re white, and as such we don’t pretend to understand the discrimination and struggles that poc face. we know that we have very different experiences and aren’t in a position to say what is and isn’t a struggle for them.

as for these struggles, parents maybe wanting grandkids is nothing. we are excluded from queer spaces for being too straight and not queer enough. we’re discriminated against by allo cishet people because we’re too gay and weird and immoral. when we create our own spaces we are told that we don’t deserve them. our only community is each other, and even then it’s filled with infighting because we’re all being told that we don’t belong anywhere.

we are told that we are fucked in the head, belong in a psych ward, are just trying to get attention, shouldn’t be allowed around people, are sociopaths/psychopaths (which is also ableist), are just naive/immature/ugly, just need an excuse for not getting laid, and are predators. these are literally all things that we (this collective) have been called personally.

we can’t talk about it in therapy or to doctors because now that’s the problem that needs to be fixed and we need to unpack the trauma that caused it. they are literally trying to tell us that our orientation is not real and is actually a problem or disorder that needs to be solved and changed. that is literal fucking conversion therapy

and we sincerely doubt that many aspec people would struggle with dealing with even worse aphobes because we do anyways. daily. from our family, our community, our healthcare, coworkers, classmates, and just about everyone else we interact with.

userboxes by @/inhumanliquid i think

[lastoneout]

I will never understand anyone being upset when a queer person realizes they aren't one identity and are in fact another. Like people who get mad when lesbians come out as trans men, or when gay people find out they're bi or pan sexual or vice-versa, or ace or aro people realize they're lesbians or gay or bi, or bi/gay/lesbians come out as aroace, or trans women decide they're more comfortable as a masc enby or trans men decide they're actually feme enbies, or nonbinary people decide they're more binary trans like what is the problem here!!

That excitement when someone comes out for the first time should carry over for every shift after, how could you possibly be unhappy when a queer person finds a different label that makes them feel more happy and understood and free, queer people suffer so much already we should be OVERJOYED when one of us becomes even happier!! Hell we should even be happy when someone tries out a queer identity but realizes they're actually cishet but now have a better understanding of themselves!! Those are our allies!! I am happy when people are happy goddamnit!!

If you are queer and scared to embrace a new identity because you think the queer people around you will reject you or feel betrayed, one those people are NOT your friends, your real friends will be happy when you become more yourself than you were before, and two I AM HAPPY FOR YOU! YOUR JOY IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME!! YOU DESERVE TO LIVE A LIFE THAT IS YOURS!!! DON'T GIVE UP ON THINGS THAT MAKE YOU HAPPIER FOR THE SAKE OF OTHER PEOPLE!!!!

A lesbian coming out as a trans man is GOOD, more trans people in the world is FANTASTIC!! A bi or pan person coming out as gay is good, that's one more happy gay person!! A trans man or woman realizing they're happier being nonbinary is great, how could you be upset by more nonbinary people existing!! A nonbinary person discovering their actually a woman or man is great, MORE TRANS PEOPLE <3 like goddamn!! If this kind of thing upsets you idk I hope you get better.

[mediacircuspod]

Alright guys please don’t come at me for this one it is strictly my opinion.

As an asexual person. The asexual cop-out bothers me.

It does!!!! What do creators do when they don’t want a character to be gay so so bad? They say they’re asexual now!! But definitely not in the text, how would they write that? How would they explain it to cishet audiences? The only people reading this article are the people who wanted them to be queer anyway.

They say “look, isn’t this close enough, isn’t this in your umbrella alphabet shit? Can I just say they’re Ace and now the people who wanted representation get to be the bad guys. Let’s make the LGBT community say that’s not enough.”

Genuinely shut the fuck up. If you wanted to actually represent me you wouldn’t do it in the fucking footnotes. Just accept that you made it gay and that people see it that way. I’m so tired of people who don’t give a fuck enough to even know the difference between aromanticism and asexuality claiming they wanted to write something for people like me. No they didn’t. They wanted to silence the voices of my community by using my lived experiences as a social weapon.

[genderqueerdykes]

as someone who has been scarred for life by experiences at gay bars, i need people to understand it's beyond tacky to mock people who want queer spaces beyond queer bars- it's dangerous.

let me explain. i went to 2 of my local queer bars a lot last year, as much as i was able to despite being poor. i witnessed a fist fight that was so bloody that ended up with a transmisogynistic drag queen getting hit in the head with a metal baton. the sight caused me to uncontrollably throw up in the bathroom of the club because of how gruesome it was. they had to close down the club and forard people out the back door because of how out of hand this person got- he was screaming transmisogynstic slurs and phrases at the bouncers were were transfem.

i was also sexually assaulted at these places, i was repeatedly groped by several people who i was not interacting with in the first place who found me attractive and decided physically grabbing me on numerous occasions was the way to get my attention. being femme in a queer bar is dangerous even if the people groping you are gay men.

i am also a recovering addict who dealt with alcohol issues in the past and could be considered a recovering alcoholic. i don't want to be around alcohol. i don't want to smell it. it triggers awful memories and also sometimes makes me consider getting a drink, but i can't have one, because the medications i take will cause a fatal reaction- i don't want to be tempted to drink, because it will kill me.

it's not right to mock someone or call them childish or whatever for not wanting to go to a club. whenever alcohol is involved, people's inhibitions are gone and they will do whatever. this includes fighting. i witnessed several other fights. just because it's a queer bar doesn't mean there won't be fights. and it especialyl doesn't m ean that you won't get groped or assaulted because, like i said, since alcohol is involved and it's a bar, there's a high chance this can and will happen.

queer people are not inherently safe angels to be around by virtue of being queer. there are still transphobes in queer bars. tranny chasers come to these bars. homophobic lesbians show up and lesbophobic gay men show up. drag queens and performers bring their cishet friends and family to support their shows. these are not perfect havens. they are not safe. we should not force other queers to interact with inherently dangerous spaces if these are supposed to be our safe spaces.

also these spaces are not friendly to people with disabilities; wheelchair users have nowhere to go especially when it's very crowded. other mobility aids get kicked and knocked over. neurodivergent people can get overstimulated by the deafening music very quickly. photosensitive people can have seizures due to the strobing lights. people with emetophobia like me run the risk of running into those types of triggers. people who are overstimulated by intoxicated people have no choice but to deal with it. dancing is one of the only activities to do other than drink and not many disabled (or even abled) people can dance for extended periods of time comfortably.

not to mention these spaces are not geared toward aromantic or asexual people at all, either. there is a long list of reasons why bars should not be our primary venues of interaction with one another. they serve a specific purpose- for people who want to cruise- but for the rest of us, it's really crucial that we have spaces that provide meaningful interactions with other queers on other levels of our identities.

some people just want to hang out with other queers in a quiet environment and craft, or shop, or drink coffee, or read books together, or just about any other activity on planet earth, and that's not "lame" or "cringy" or bad in any way- these are extremely normal and necessary parts of human interaction that we all require and crave and it's normal to want to do healthy, domestic things with other queers. we need this in our lives.

please take it seriously when people attempt to create queer spaces that don't involve alcohol and bars. it's necessary for our survival and well being as a community.

[lavendermoonlitskies]

I wanna talk about why I think Dead Boy Detectives means so much to so many people after only 1 season

So, we’re all angry and sad and confused right now and I think Netflix needs to understand why canceling this specific show was so upsetting to so many people, myself included.

First of all, they’ve made this a habit. The list of shows that they cancel after only one or two seasons is growing longer and longer, and there doesn’t seem to be any conceivable reason as to why. They hardly advertise their own show, they ignore its impact on the audience showcasing itself right in front of their eyes all over the internet via trending hashtags and campaigns to binge the show so Netflix doesn’t cancel it, and then they cancel it anyway.

The main question is why. Why do they keep canceling these shows that are so well received and manage to grow a passionate audience so soon in its run? The shows aren’t all necessarily similar to each other in the writing, casting, mood and what-have-you, but they do seem to have one thing in common: the audience is full of queer people. Regardless of how society has progressed in the way of LGBTQ+ acceptance, big corporations still have no interest in adding to that if it will hinder their financial gain in any way.

Whoever’s in charge over at Netflix HQ is not interested in taking risks. They seem to have forgotten that a show is rarely going to have record breaking numbers after one season, and if the show doesn’t specifically cater to a cishet audience, that’s all the more reason to pull the plug. That’s why shows like Riverdale go on for so long, that’s why Stranger Things hasn’t been cancelled yet (yes I know there is one single openly gay character in that show, but they’re not actually going to do anything with that and you know it), and that’s why there are countless shows with interesting and entirely unique plots and characters and settings who only get 8-12 episodes in total. Shows that cater to a cishet audience are safe, and despite the fact that Netflix is a multi-billion dollar corporation that can absolutely afford to risk having faith in something that diverts from the norm and attracts the weirdos of this world who just want to watch something that makes them feel seen, they just won’t do it.

I can’t really speak for a lot of these other shows, but Dead Boy Detectives was one of the most unapologetically queer shows I’ve ever seen. In just one season, it left us with some profound commentary on the horrors of hate crime against minorities and how when it occurs, it is all-too-often swiped under the rug and justice never comes. Edwin and Charles were victimized for being different and it is a very real-world issue to see kids like them simply ignored until it’s too late. Do you know how many queer kids saw themselves in Charles as we learned about his abusive father and all around terrible home life? Or how many saw themselves in Edwin when we learned what happened to him? That’s basically a tale as old as time but Netflix must’ve decided that it’s too uncomfortable to bring up to a cishet audience, once again deciding that going with what’s safe for them is better than giving an audience who needs it something to make them feel seen and heard.

It’s even more insane when you realize that the very first Netflix original series was Orange Is The New Black, because now it’s as if they’re going backwards.