#homphobia /

[fabfem12]

I believe the myth that anger turns you into the people/person that abused you was created to keep women placated and in a position where we are never fully able to take ownership of their own rage because, according to that myth, that makes you just as bad as your abusers. Please be a hater and angry till the day you die. WHAT THEY DID WAS NEVER OKAY AND IT NEVER WILL BE.

[whatareyoureallyafraidof]

[dyingroses]

[whereserpentswalk]

Here's some harsh but important advice for any queer youth out there: you will likely not cure your queerphobic relatives bigotry by coming out to them. That's not how people work. Yes it happens sometimes, but that's not what coming out is like for most people. If your family members think that queer people are gross, or evil, or sinful, or lesser, they're going to probably think those things about you if you come out to them. We like to think that people who are nice to us will always do good things, but that's not always true. You are not so good at being someone's child/grandchild/niece/nephew/sibling that you can cure them of all of society's evils, nor should that be expected of you. The leopards will eat your face too.

Like, I understand why people spread around stories of conservative parents suddenly accepting queer people once their child is queer, but that's not what anyone should expect. Nor are you a bad person if you can't magically change someone's heart by coming out to them. You can encourage someone to unlearn bigotry, or help them unlearn bigotry, but you can't do it for them. Even people trying to be accepting won't be perfect, and some things might take awhile for people. It should also be mentioned that the reality on the ground for a lot of enby and transmasc people is that relatives become much more bigoted agaisnt them when they come out.

You don't have to come out to anyone you don't feel safe coming out to. I know it sounds harsh, but there are people who will accept you, even if your family doesn't. Your safety comes first, and you should not be expected to put yourself in harms way trying to change your family's minds on weather or not you have rights.

[thashining]

Thank you

@plies

[tiredaf23]

Found this on witchblur and all I could think was

______

______

Homophobic much???

Being a witch is an identity. It's not because it's a trend, it's because people want to start being witches. And yeah, there's a lot of queer witches, but there's also a lot of cis-het-allo witches as well. Calling queer witches "posers" in itself is disgusting. Queer people want a safe space, and witchcraft is their safe space.

If you think like this, you're homophobic. I don't care if you claim you're not but discluding someone because they're queer is discrimination.

I don't care if this witch finds me. If they do, I'll gladly block. I said what I said.

[zonatcannibalism]

Yknow theres something fucking infuriating about having to struggle for years with the relationship between my queer identity and my jewish identity just for Tumblr leftists uwu that have never read a single word from the torah to go all "actually Judaism is super gay lmao". Like. There is queerness in Jewish texts. There are queer interpretations of judaism. But seeing my struggle with the homophobia and transphobia that also exist in judaism and are the commonly accepted interpretations in the orthodox community be erased by a bunch of goyim that only heard about Jewish queerness through tiktok fucking hurts. To my non Jewish followers: I hope you all have a very pleasant shut up about stuff you don't understand.

K thanks

[pizzacrustdisposal]

people (non-queer men specifically) will complain about The Queers being sexual deviants and shit. then turn around and slap stickers and decals of naked women on their pickup trucks. and have it printed on their clothes. and make unwanted sexual advances on waitresses in Applebees. and abuse their wives. where was I going with this

[theconcealedweapon]

"I'm not homophobic. I just don't want children being exposed to things that are inappropriate for them."

That's a lie.

If you simply believed that certain content was inappropriate for children, and your beliefs were consistent regardless of gender roles or orientation, no one would call you homophobic.

There's no good reason to be okay with children having crushes on their classmates but not if they're the same gender.

There's no good reason to be okay with flirting and romance in children's TV shows but not if they're the same gender.

There's no good reason to be okay with children being at Hooters but not at drag shows.

There's no good reason to be okay with child beauty pageants but against boys experimenting with makeup.

And don't give me that "I'm against both" bullshit. The heterosexual and gender conforming content has been around since forever. If your response this whole time has been "I don't like it but it is what it is" but your response to LGBT or gender non-conforming content is "WTF BAN IT NOW!", then you're not "against both".

[misfit-and-escapist]

So today we went to Juniper valley and there was this dude with his friend or whatever and he saw me and my girlfriend holding hand and walking around and as we passed them the dude had an emotional breakdown and kept asking "why" 😂😂😂😂😂 he also did this another time when we were going back to the car and he saw us and kept just saying "why". 😂😂😂😂😂😂 Gods what an immature dude. 😂😂😂

[originalleftist]

Something I dearly wish more people, especially those who identify with progressivism and the Left, understood is Intersectionality.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on the subject myself, and I have my own biases and privilege, so take my position for whatever its worth, and feel free to dissect it. But very basically, "Intersectionality is a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, height, age, and weight. These intersecting and overlapping social identities may be both empower and oppressing. However little good-quality quantitative research has been done to support or undermine the practical uses of intersectionality." (Wikpedia)

Put very simply, its about how different aspects of someone's identity affect how they are privileged and disadvantaged/discriminated against- and, crucially, how one can be both privileged in certain ways, and discriminated against in others.

I had heard the term previously, and probably had a vague sense of what it meant, but I believe that, as with so many things, I first started to really realize its importance, and the deficiency of awareness of intersectionality, while following the Depp v Heard trial (full disclosure: I actually used Depp v Heard as an example of intersectionality on a college anthropology exam, and I will undoubtably repeat some things from that here, though I do not have the exam on-hand to refer to).

One of the recurring arguments raised by certain Depp supporters (presumably those sympathetic to the Left, or perhaps more astute at manipulating the Left) was basically that Amber Heard did not deserve support because she was wealthy/famous/privileged. A recurring line (and example of how, despite being deeply rooted in Right-wing MRA/Incel ideology, "the Justice for Johnny Depp" crowd coopted Left-wing and social justice rhetoric) was to mock and dismiss Heard's obvious distress as "white woman tears".

Of course, this term is typically used to call out white fragility/defensiveness around race, and white women who play the victim against Black people- not a white woman who is in actual distress because she's being forced to publicly relive r*pe trauma in court before a jeering mob of her r*pist's fans. And the entire narrative ignores that Depp enjoyed far more power and privilege than Heard did (those who claim otherwise are generally adopting the misogynist "Men's Rights Activist" narrative that women are actually the privileged gender in society and are always believed, while constantly making false accusations against men- which was probably their whole point). It also means ignoring that Heard was repeatedly and viciously targeted based on her gender, her sexual orientation as an openly queer woman, and her mental health. Depp was subject to some ableist attacks as well, for example, in that he was stigmatized for the illness of addiction, but Heard, as with most things, got by far the worst of it.

One could and should also point out that much of what was directed at Heard and her supporters-the censoring of her freedom of expression, harassment and death threats against her and her child, abuse of the legal system, etc, as well as the horrific and life-threatening abuse inflicted against her by Depp and previously found to be true by a UK court-would be unjustified against anyone, regardless of their relative privilege, at least assuming one believes in universal rights or the rule of law. But the argument of privilege on Heard's part is itself selective, and misleading.

Now, flash forward to October 2023, for case study number 2. Among the arguments of the anti-semitic Left since October 7th have been that Israelis (primarily Jewish citizens of the world's only Jewish state) do not deserve sympathy or consideration, and that anything that is done to them is justified as "resistance", because they are the oppressors- they hold the power and privilege. Often, this has manifested as attacks not only on Israel and Israelis, but one anyone who supports them- and anyone who is Jewish. Again, one could and should reject outright that atrocities such as murder, r*pe, slavery, and torture are justified against anyone, for any reason. But the premise of the argument, that Israel holds the power and privilege, is again over-simplistic. Certainly, Israel has more economic and military power than Hamas, Gaza, or Palestine. But on a world-wide scale, the Jewish people are still a very small, marginalized, and vulnerable group- and would likely be far more so without a nation capable of defending itself. Jews amount to less than half a percent of the world's population, and the vast majority live in one of two countries- Israel and the United States. Further, regardless of the power disparity that exists between Israel and Gaza or Palestine, it should be self-evidently preposterous to argue that a random Israeli civilian, confronted by a Hamas gunman and facing imminent murder, r*pe, abduction, or all of the above, is in a position of power. But all of this is frequently ignored to try to justify bigotry, terrorism, and collective punishment of Israelis- and, very often, Diaspora Jews as well.

One should also consider how many Leftists have reacted to the war in Ukraine. Ukraine is unquestionably the smaller, less powerful party in a war with Russia, and it is unquestionably the victim of aggression. So, how did the Putinist/Tankie wing of the Left justify supporting Russia over Ukraine? Easy- they just treat Ukraine as an extension of NATO/the US, rather than as a sovereign nation, and argue that NATO aggression and imperialism caused the war, which Russia is then the underdog resisting (this of course is basically a Kremlin propaganda narrative).

Now, let's jump forward to the present, where Joe Biden's political future is being imperilled by relentless attacks asserting, on little to no solid evidence, that he is both mentally and physically unfit to run for or serve as President. One would assume that if any person on Earth is immune to systemic discrimination, it's Joe Biden. He is a fairly wealthy, heterosexual, cisgendered, white, Christian, American man. He basically won Privilege Bingo. And he currently holds the single most powerful position on the planet- one which just became frighteningly more powerful with the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling (albeit a ruling they obviously only made for Trump's benefit, confident that Biden would not abuse the immense and utterly unprecedented power that they have bestowed upon him).

And yet, as we saw with Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama before him, even climbing to the heights of political power does not shield a marginalized identity from attack. Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, and was a major party's nominee for President. But she was subjected to relentless attacks, some obviously misogynist, and it certainly played a role in her defeat and the election of Donald Trump- a serial r*pist who was taped boasting about being able to get away with grabbing women "by the pussy". Barrack Obama won the Presidency twice- but not without a widespread movement denying that he was even a real American, allegations that he was a "secret Muslim" (which would not be disqualifying for the Presidency in any case), and a backlash that also likely contributed to the election of Trump, a virulent racist.

Biden, as a white man, has advantages that Obama and Clinton never did. But Biden too can still be attacked and treated unfairly based on his association with various marginalized identities. As soon as he showed signs of age and frailty, he was subject to the relentless contempt of our society for the geriatric and the disabled. Add to that his life-long stutter. Granted, Biden has far more power than most to resist such attacks, so it would probably be a big stretch to say that he is a victim of systemic oppression. But these attacks, using ableism and ageism to declare someone unfit for the Presidency, are ultimately also attacks on the dignity of all older and disabled people (there's also a good bit of racism and misogyny underlying it, as at least some of the hyperbole and fear-mongering over Biden's age and fitness is clearly driven by fear that a Black woman might succeed him- see in particular the recent piece in The Washington Post calling for Biden to stay in but replace VP Harris).

So what is my point in all of this? It is that peoples' identities are complex, and that just because someone is privileged-even immensely privileged-in certain ways does not mean that they cannot be underprivileged, marginalized, or oppressed and discriminated against in others. And that if the Left/progressives as a whole had as solid a grasp of intersectionality, and its importance, as they do of privilege, they would be far less likely to fall so easily for fascist psy-ops trying to convince Leftists that no, this whole class of people are okay to persecute because they're actually Oppressors, in order to divide and conquer us all.

Because the thing is: privilege is real. So is systemic discrimination. Certain people and groups of people do have unfair advantages over others based on their identities and how they are perceived, which contribute to bias and must be accounted for and rectified. But this is also true: everybody has multiple different identities. Everybody has ways in which they are advantaged over someone else, and ways in which they are disadvantaged. Some people have far more things that fall on one side of the scale than the other. But you can find something about just about anyone that gives them an unfair advantage over someone else. So if you focus only on that, and define someone's worthiness to receive sympathy accordingly, then you can reframe anyone as the Oppressor, and therefore unworthy of sympathy, and deserving of anything that is done to them.

Of course, one might also cynically argue that many people WANT to fall for that ploy, because it gives them an excuse to engage in harassment, bullying, and abuse; to join in the mob, while pretending to be righteous. I might also observe that the Left's fixation on determining who is worthy of sympathy based on who holds the most power essentially commits them ideologically to always being on the losing side- should any Leftist ever actually succeed in achieving major political success, they will become part of "the establishment", and immediately suspect. And I wonder how large a role this sort of thinking plays in Leftist third party "purity politics", and the infamous "circular firing squad".

[fabfem12]

The more I debate with TRAs, the more I realise that they genuinely believe that masculinity and feminity DO NOT exist as social concepts but rather as individual traits that can be mixed and matched and then attached to a word. For example, talking to a transman, I asked them what masculinity is, and they responded with "it is whatever you want it to be" or a good one I always hear is "masculinity means different things to different people".

TRAs genuinely believe that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are traits that are just attached to words. These words are empty vessels that THEY attach meaning to. They aren't defining a word; they are describing THEMSELVES. So when you ask a Trans person, "What are masculinity and femininity?" to them the question is received as "Describe who you are? or Describe yourself?" Thus, why, gender is something that is/can mean anything to anybody.

They have no structural conceptualisation of gender because, to them, gender is not a tool or even an ideology. It is the self. So when radfems say "woman is not a gender" or "women are adult human females," they cannot conceptualise or even grasp this because, to them, gender is the self. How can women be without the 'self'?

If you are Trans and reading this, you are describing gender as a personality. LMAO.

[spurgie-cousin]

ok I'm just going to be flooding y'all with posts today I guess, but when I went to Carlin's profile to look at her weird baby announcement (I'm assuming?) I saw that the post below it was a reel with their kids using the "very demure, very mindful" joke/meme. Which pissed me off, because if you don't know, that whole meme was created by a trans creator named Jools Lebron on tiktok, who is literally using their tiktok money to help find their transition.

and I know it's unrealistic to expect someone like the Stewarts to know that but it just feels 🫤🫤🫤🫤 that they get to profit off of her creation, when they are probably regularly voting for and promoting anti-trans sentiments (and if they aren't, they've never cared to make that known as people who have been associated with a lot of homophobia over the years).

that joke has gone like, mega viral over the last few weeks and poor Jools has had to deal with an insane amount of bullying over their appearance, voice, and just being trans in general, with a lot of it being from self proclaimed Christians, of course.

and i know that's nowhere near the only time that's happened, they do it a lot (they used a Frank Ocean song in that baby announcement? video I just mentioned, who is a famously queer artist). but it's just frustrating with how hateful their family has been to trans and gay folk that they just get to keep profiting off of the art work of queer folk.

[waywardsunlight]

Oh no! I wonder what this could be!

Oh it’s girls kissing ig. 

[productofaritual]

My goal in life is to get a gf and introduce her as my gf to all my family who are the "well I have no problem with gay people I just [insert some bullshit]" style of homphobic and have them stand in shock and be like "I didn't know u were gay" And hit them w the "I thought u didn't have a problem w gay people :)" and watch them flounder as they try to save their homophobic ass in front of two obviously queer ppl

[yourlocalbadgerscales]

”What is wrong with this generation” First of all, you are, and SECOND of all, you are. That’s it that’s the post.