#i have no problem referring to my attraction to women as gay and therefore something i have been able to pursue bc of my agab

[tattered-cynic]

The original poster blocked me whilst I was writing this reply (lmao) presumably because they actually didn't want to hear what I have to say, despite actively stating they were happy to continue the discussion in their post.. so @becausegoodheroesdeservekidneys here's the reply below that I can only assume you were too afraid to read I guess. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you. To address the points you raise in your reply:

I wasn't saying you called me an idiot. I thought it would have been pretty clear I was referring to the un-named guy in the meeting that you were inferring was an idiot. I will concede you used (1) source that supports your opinion in the replies. I also used a source. Neither of our sources are what I would call disreputable so we're at an impasse there I guess. My apologies I didn't spell everything out for you in tiny steps so that you could be "emotionally ready for me disagreeing with you" (see how rude that sounds, and you say I'm the one "flipping the table" - I think we can both agree that's unnecessary).

I'm not an expert on intersex conditions, any more than you are. It may have been wrong for me to use the word "disorder", in which case I apologise to any intersex person reading. That being said, I was using the term because of knowing about DSD's, therefore assuming since it's part of the initialism that the word "disorder" was acceptable. (Ironically this is an example of me supposedly using up-to-date terminology and you having a problem with it, which is the root of the original post, in reverse.) That being said, I do know that intersex conditions exist as differentiations between the 2 sexes, male and female. They don't show the existence of any 3rd sex, they exist only as conditions in the 2 sexes. They can only exist as such, and therefore their existence is further evidence that humans only have 2 sexes, because different intersex conditions affect the sexes depending on which sex is affected. Basically, we have 2 sexes, and intersex conditions exist as modifiers on either of those 2 sexes but they don't create a 3rd sex by their existence.

I asked you not to involve intersex people here as part of your argument because you are trying to use them to argue more than 2 sexes exist in humans, which is false. I strongly believe you brought them up thinking they would be a "gotcha" and I'd have to back down, something that happens a lot in discussions around both trans issues and gender issues. I may be reading into this more than you think appropriate, but I've seen it done too many times now that I'm very sensitive to any attempt to throw mention of intersex people into an argument not originally involving them.

I'm going to be completely honest here and say that I'm not likely to take seriously or agree with someone who so freely throws around the "q" slur when talking about bisexuality. I and thousands of other lesbian, gay and bisexual people have had that word used against us alongside violence for decades, I will not accept it used here. You using it so freely instantly gives me very strong feelings of dislike and distrust that you will have to work hard to dispel.

At no point have I "slammed the victim button" (?). I am referring once again to the un-named man in your original post. You "correcting" him in public is an attempt to place your beliefs above his, or as I phrased it, to force them on him. I'm sorry that you felt uncomfortable at my use of that phrasing to describe your actions.

Sexuality is based on sex. I'm attracted to both sexes, men and women. I'm bisexual. Lesbians and gays are attracted to the same sex - they're homosexual. Straight people are attracted to the opposite sex - they're heterosexual. That's what the words mean and why they exist. Gender is completely different from sex. Gender expression is individual to each person, usually informed by culture and society. Gender has nothing whatsoever to do with your sexual orientation. You are entitled to your personal beliefs about gender, as I said, but they aren't applicable when talking about sexual attraction, between the sexes.

To answer your question of where I got the impression of you interrupting him from - in your original post you use the phrase "I had to break in and correct the guy". Tell me how that doesn't immediately give the strong impression that you interrupted him? I did not say you put him "on blast", I said you "blasted" - a verb usage I admit has gained different meanings online in recent years, but I used here simply to refer to your attitude towards him in your post as being negative.

I would argue I'm not the one "flipping the table" here. I disagreed with you on something, pointed out where I think you've gone wrong, and so far you're the only one to actually throw any insults around or express any particularly strong negative emotions. Not that expressing emotion in an online debate is wrong, quite the opposite - I strongly believe that anyone is entitled to get emotional about whatever makes them emotional and if it informs their position all the more important to express it. I have some strong feelings about this topic as you clearly also do, the difference between us is I haven't insulted you or your ability to discourse as a result of those feelings. We both know that online debate can be incredibly toxic and I'm glad it's not here, but so far you have been far more antagonistic than I have, yet have the gall to say I'm somehow in the wrong for "feeling attacked" - geez I wonder why I might be feeling attacked.

As I said at the start of my reply, I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you. Politely and respectfully.

[infinityonhighvevo]

maybe i will learn how to be attracted to men, like, unironically some day

[yasminbenoit]

“A Romantic Partner Won’t Complete Me, Because I Was Born Complete”: How Identifying As Asexual & Aromantic Brought Me True Freedom & Happiness | Yasmin Benoit for British Vogue

There is a phase in our lives where everyone seems asexual and almost everyone seems aromantic. It wasn't until puberty kicked in that platonic relationships seemed to take a backseat. My peers stopped wanting to play together and started wanting to 'date' each other. That was when I started to realise that there was something different about me. I didn’t seem to be experiencing the same urges as those I was around. I chose to go to an all girls school in the hopes that – in the absence of boys – everyone would stop caring about sex and dating. It actually had the opposite effect. There was a sense of deprivation in the air and the heightened desire to project their sexuality onto anything and everything.  

Therefore, my lack of interest became even more obvious, and it became a not-so-fun game to work out the source of what should be troubling me, but hadn’t been until that point. Having a sexual orientation isn’t just natural, it’s essential. It’s part of being a fully-functional human being. And to be romantically love and be loved by another is the ultimate goal. It’s part of being normal, which made me both abnormal and puzzling. When your asexual, people think there’s something wrong with your body. When you’re aromantic, they think there’s something wrong with your soul. Even for a teenage girl who internalised all of Disney Channel’s “be yourself” messages, it’s never nice to have people publicly debate your supposed physical and psychological flaws.  

My nickname in school was “hollow and emotionless.” I was a joker with a decent amount of friends, but I was lacking something crucial, the kind of love that really mattered and the kind of lust that made life exciting...so I was practically Lord Voldemort with braids. I sat through the regular DIY sexuality tests, having my peers show me graphic sexual imagery, have very sexual conversations in my presence, and ask me inappropriately intimate questions to gauge how far gone I truly was. These tests lead to the development of theories, most centred around me having some kind of mental problem. After a while, you start to wonder if everyone knows something you don’t.

When they said that I must have been molested as a child and “broken” by the trauma, I wondered if I had somehow forgotten about sexual abuse that actually hadn’t happened. I looked at some of my own relatives with suspicion, the same people who would later ask me if I didn’t experience sexual attraction because I was a pedophile. It was suggested that I was “suffering” from my “issues” because I was socially anxious and insecure. The suggestion that my ‘issue’ was pathological stayed with me for a long time, but not as much as the widely accepted theory that I was mentally slow. Unfortunately, that one stuck. I was referred to as “stupid” and I started to believe that was the case. It would impact my experience in education for the next eight years, long after I realised that there was a word for what I was.

Asexual.

I first heard the word during one of the near-daily sexuality tests that I was subjected to. I was asked if I was gay, to which I said that I wasn’t interested in anybody like that – men or women. At fifteen, I was asked, “Maybe you’re asexual or something?” but it wasn’t quite a lightbulb moment. How could it be when I had never heard the word outside of biology class? After an evening of Google searching, I realised that there were many people with my exact same experience, complete strangers whose stories sounded so strangely similar to mine. I also stumbled across the word ‘aromantic,’ but at the time, I didn’t understand the need for it. "Wouldn't all asexual people be aromantic? A romantic relationship without sex is just friendship with rules,” I thought.

Either way, my discoveries showed me that I wasn’t alone, but that only half helpful. I now had an identity that no one had heard of or understood. Most didn’t believe that being asexual or aromantic was a real thing, and I doubted it to. I had been taught to after years of armchair pathologisation. If asexuality was real, why did no one tell you that being sexually attracted to nobody was an option? What if it was just an internet identity made up to comfort people with all of the issues that had been attributed to me? I didn’t have to go far down the rabbit hole to realise that asexuality, like many non-heteronormative identities, had been medicalised. What I had experienced as just the tip of the iceberg. As someone who hadn’t been prescribed drugs I didn’t need or subjected to unnecessary hormone tests, I was one of the lucky ones.

My activism would be my gateway to the community. Despite being the ugly friend at school, I ended up becoming a model while in university. I decided to use the platform I had gained through my career to raise awareness for asexuality and aromanticism. It gave me the opportunity to encounter a range of asexual and aromantic offline, it was then that I learned the significance of having an aromantic identity. There are many asexual people who still feel romantic attraction, as well as aromantic people who still feel sexual attraction. They have their own range of experiences, their own culture, their own flag, and like the asexual community, I was relieved to see that they are just normal people. These intersecting communities are not stereotypes. They weren’t just thirteen year old, pink haired kids making up identities on Tumblr to feel special. They were parents, lawyers, academics, husbands, girlfriends, artists, black, white, young, old, with differing feelings towards the many complex elements of sexuality and intimacy. Most importantly, they were happy.

I am proud to be part of both, and I know that while being asexual and aromantic, I am a complete person and I can live a perfectly fulfilling life. Since meeting members of my communities, I’ve become more open about my identities in real life, and a reaction I’m often met with is sympathy. “You must feel like you’re missing out,” “I can’t imagine being like that,” “It must be hard for your family,” “Do you worry no one will want you?” “How do you handle being so lonely?” “You’re so brave and strong,” “What will you do with your life now?” Even in 2021, a woman who isn’t romantically loved or sexually desired by their “special someone” is perceived as being afflicted with some kind of life-limiting condition.  

Asexuality doesn't make undesirable or unable to desire others. It is a unique experience of sexuality, not a deprivation from it. Even if it was, there is so much more to life than what turns us on and what we do about it. Romantic love is just one form of love, neither superior nor inferior to any other. Being aromantic doesn't mean that you can't love or be loved, it does not mean you are void of other emotions or capabilities. I am not lonely with my friends, family, co-workers and supporters. I feel confident not when someone wants to date me but when I meet my goals and form worthwhile connections with others. My success isn't determined by whether someone will want to marry me someday. What we want out of life is our decision alone, our sources of happiness should not be defined by our ever-changing, culturally relative social standards. The love of a romantic partner won't complete me because I was born complete. Feeling sexual attraction to others won't liberate me because my liberation is not dependent on other people.

Valentine's Day is on the horizon. It's an occasion that amps up the focus on (and the pressure to achieve) a very specific type of love and sexual expression, one that is actually alienating for people inside and outside of the asexual community. During a pandemic where many relationships have been strained, tested, formed or distanced, it's important to keep the diversity of romantic and sexual feelings in mind. Many expect me to feel annoyed or lonely during this time of year, but I actually feel empowered and excited by the way sex, romance and love are discussed more deeply around this time. These conversations are constantly expanding to become more inclusive for everyone, and that's what we need to see all year round.

https://www.vogue.co.uk/arts-and-lifestyle/article/asexuality-and-aromanticism

[badnewbie]

hi i have a brain that can’t shut up and here’s my little pet theory on what i like to call the joker’s trick: the fact that the joker is gay and we all know it, but we cannot ever say it out loud or acknowledge it

this is literally his picture on the wiki btw. also i feel like if you’re here i don’t need to argue that the joker is gay because he literally is. we’re doing gay joker analysis 2.0 here, sir

please note that i’m about to use a bunch of sexist and homophobic language, as i generally find that the most effective way to communicate the cultural norms that i’m about to touch on.

obviously, i’m using the word ‘gay’ when i’m talking about joker as a bit of an oversimplification. i’d use ‘queer’ or maybe even ‘queercoded’ (ugh), because it’s more accurate to how joker is actually portrayed, but when i grew up, gay was still very much a slur and gay-as-a-slur, an f-word, is in fact what the joker needs to be. this is for a reason: to me, the most important aspect about the joker is that he is a creation by straight men, meant to appeal to other straight men. 

so yeah, problem solved right? the joker is the symbol for ultimate evil, so he generally represents whatever his writer thinks is the worst thing that exists and for a lot of straight men, that’s a gay dude. kinda sucks, but checks out. 

except, that’s not the whole story, because straight men friggin’ love the joker. they’re dressing up as him, they’re quoting him, kinning him, coming up with elaborate backstories for him, leaving really intense youtube comments about how he’s the only one who really gets batman about him. in other words, they think the joker is cool. they think he’s really, really, really cool. They want to be the joker

why? that actually doesn’t check out at all. sure, he’s a villain who does whatever he wants, but most villains do and most of them haven’t been able to capture the hearts and minds of straight men the way the joker has. and joker has gotten more obviously gay over the years as he’s gotten more popular, not less. straight dudes love that the joker is gay! 

time for some academic perspectives: our cultural attitude towards gayness are deeply interlinked with our attitudes towards gender roles and masculinity. and masculinity is a deeply strange concept and it is something that a lot of comics concern themselves with (see: straight men appealing to other straight men). while most comic book men are usually examples of hegemonic masculinity (the culturally ideal form of masculinity), the joker is at his core a failure of hegemonic masculinity, and him being gay is the easiest shorthand to straight men for communicating this. a true man is a straight man is a masculine man is a man who is not feminine is a man who is not attracted to men. queercoding men and failing masculinity is usually one and the same in practice.

here’s another thing about manhood: it’s often precarious. with ‘precarious manhood’, we refer to the phenomenon that manhood for men often feels like something that can be taken away from them. while being a woman is often conceptualized as something innate, for men it is much easier to be accused of not being a ‘real’ man. as such, men tend to be more pre-occupied with their own masculinity and often remain in a more anxious state in which they constantly try to re-affirm their manhood to both themselves and their surroundings.* this is what many people incorrectly refer to as toxic masculinity btw. It should also be noted that hegemonic manhood is a cultural ideal and therefore attaining it is fully impossible and this is leaving a lot of men frustrated. they reach for an unattainable goal under the treat of cultural punishment if they fail. also, this effect is generally stronger in straight men, as queer men generally already ‘know’ that they will never reach hegemonic masculinity, as it is defined through being attracted to women only, and therefore, in this aspect, they can walk the mile

so what is a frustrated straight man who is feeling like a failure of masculinity to do? well...what if there was a role model for you who is on every account a failure of masculinity too and he was thriving? what if there was a guy who’s laughing about all these gender rules and breaking them and maybe it made him even more badass? maybe there’s this complete failure of masculinity, not just walking the mile but running directly in the opposite direction and he’s scary and powerful and maybe that’s true power and maybe you are in some way even more powerful (masculine) than all those other guys who are effortlessly performing their masculinity. what then?

but is he gay? don’t worry straight men, of course he isn’t :) 

(is he gay? yeah)

(but is he?? no, he isn’t (although he is))

seriously, is the joker gay? yes! but also no! because his purpose is to be a (lol) safe space for straight men to project their anxieties about their own masculinity on. the joker has to be gay in order to be an effective failure of masculinity, but he can’t be gay because then he’s just some gay guy whose nature is just naturally different from straight men/real men and straight men can’t project on him anymore.

so yeah whoops, it’s still homophobia. but at least it’s weird homophobia. it’s what the joker would have wanted * this also can lead to much greater difficulty for women to go against their assigned gender role, which is often constricting and oppressive. i blog about this a LOT on my main, so please don’t come for me on this

[mistressemmedi]

Måneskin: "Different from whom?"

Greetings from Miley Cyrus - phenomenal numbers.

The streams of Zitti e Buoni are growing by the second, and ahead of Muse, on the top of the English charts, twelfth in the Spotify Global Chart. We almost tripled followers after Rotterdam (from 1.4 to 3.3 million, ed). Contagious and universal madness: T-shirts and merchandise sold out in 10 minutes. Like records, tickets for a tour that adds dates and expands on maps. They are even looking for us in festivals where the Rolling Stones have played. - Thomas

After the whole cocaine scandal that was started against us from France, which was later denied by my drug test, in Spain there people have been making murals with my face saying "No drugs". Some tweets made us laugh: «Congratulations, Italy! I have never been so sure that four people have fucked each other ". Miley Cyrus started following us. "You are great". “You are more” . - Damiano

From rags to riches - what a story

It was only 2016, and we were playing in restaurants, on the streets, in via del Corso (famous street in Rome). Damiano without a microphone, Thomas's guitar with broken strings, Ethan drummed on a cajón. At the occupations of the high schools in Rome (Kennedy, Virgilio, Mamiani) we had our first gigs and half an hour of fame, between those who criticized us and those who said "these guys are so cool". One of the rare times in which they offered to pay us to play - 50 euros each - we offered that money to those after us, in exchange for the chance to play during their time slow, as we knew there would have been a bigger crowd. We already understood then how it worked. That visibility was worth more than the money. We still think so ». - Victoria

The intimacy of rock - Choice of a genre

Music allows is this miracle which allows one to talk about very personal and private topics, even difficult and delicate ones. They are and remain deeply yours, but at the same time they become a confession that reaches a wider audience, and in this passage which is like a delivery, they also find their place in you, their elaboration. They are overcome, they are accepted. One moment it feels aggressive, one moment later a (soft) ballad. It's very cathartic. - Damiano

Against panic - The stage as therapy

I have suffered a lot from anxiety and panic attacks, it is a problem that I have worked on thanks to a course of psychotherapy, to my friends and family. Playing has helped me not to let myself be paralyzed by my fears, not to be limited in my private and professional life. I have learned to accept, to live with this side of me. I don't hide it. I no longer feel ashamed. - Victoria

This belief that only crazy people go to the psychologist is widespread ignorance. Nobody is born learned. And it is often difficult to understand why we are here, let alone the derivation and direction of our desires. It is a long and legitimate journey towards one's clarity. - Damiano

Essere fuori di testa – Ma diversi da loro (Be out of your mind - But different from them)

Already feeling a strong passion for something that is not a 'regular' profession but an artistic language, it puts you on a level where you're an anomaly, and while you're neither superior nor inferior to others, it places you in the condition of what breaks the mold but you're also being at a loss, leaving it to you to be bold and to take risks, hoping that they will pay off and land you somewhere. "What good is it if you don't stand out on your own?". You want to give it an aesthetic to your artistic dream, but to others it boils down to " You dress differently! You must be gay! ”, I'm 22 now and it makes me laugh, but at 17 it had an effect on me too. - Damiano

The beauty of being unique - Of believing in that and defending it

After all, we are all different not because we want to be alternative but because really no one is the same. Justice is being judged on what you do and not what you are. Justice is equality, respect, beauty. - Ethan

Fluid sexuality - Pride is freedom

We appreciate heels on men, we kiss each other, we have an open, extended mind, and we are proud of it. The horizons become vast, beyond the oppression of conservative families. With information on the web, knowledge is enriched and with it the possibility that minorities will be fewer and fewer, because majorities will be fewer and fewer. This will lower the volume to insults and bullying. If social networks can reach a village of 50 souls to reveal to someone, who is afraid of the darkness, that someone has felt that same fear.. There is no longer the need to give it a name, to define that "something" to fear, to brand it with labels that only limit you. Definitions have always had this effect on me. Gender should not even be considered in a person's judgment. Let alone orientation ". - Victoria

Sexism - A culture to be dismantled

Emma (Italian singer) dropped the bomb:" When I went to Eurovision, they insulted me over a pair of shorts. Damiano - half naked and in heels - was never criticized ". The judgment against women is constant, ferocious, and demeaning (if I have a lot of sex I'm cool but Vic a whore, where I show myself strong I'm a leader she is domineering and pain in the ass, who is successful because only because of her looks [and not the hard work she puts in]). As a male I am privileged, the harassment I suffer is not comparable to that experienced by a woman, the comments on my aesthetics are focused only on my aesthetics and do not insinuate anything about my professionalism and my competence, while women are victims of this kind of thinking in a systemic way. But I did find myself in a situation, out of nowhere, with someone who, pulling close to her for a selfie, started licking my face ... "What do you want, did you ask me?" Consent exists, and it is a must ». - Damiano

To grow as a person - The only rule to follow

For me, to conform is the total opposite of educating oneself, and the asphyxiation of one's expression (of freedom). Fortunately, I did not suffer heavy bullying, to the point where I felt I needed to change to adapt to how others saw me. But the matrix of who I am and the aggression that marks me is the same. If I'm a kid who dances and loves dolls, then allow me the freedom to do so. I used to be a kid who wanted long hair and played with Barbies. My friends, as a teenager, looked my long hair and teased me: "You have to find yourself a girl with a short hair to make up for it". My grandparents took the dolls away from me and said: “Stop it, they're not for you” ». - Ethan

“I was six and I already could not tolerate the distinctions between masculine and feminine. I've always had strong ideas about how I wanted to be. I refused things typically defined as feminine as a child, and they made fun of me for skating, for playing soccer, for not wearing skirts, for giving myself the chance to be as I wanted to be. I suffered a little, as I was bullied, but I had courage to stay true to myself, and today thanks to that courage I know that I could have been much more hurt, or I would have risked leaving the most important decision to others: the one about being just me". - Victoria

Love - music and girlfriends

I've been married to music for the past 20 years. I cannot wait to celebrate our golden wedding anniversary. - Ethan

Everyone goes through their own experiences, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, but it's never other people's business." - Thomas

When, for the first time, I developed feelings and attraction for a girl it was a bit disorienting because I had never had the courage to go beyond the limitations I had imposed on myself. For society, being heterosexual is the norm and therefore often one automatically pegs himself in that way, giving up the freedom to experience many different shades and facets of love. Once I got over the initial insecurity of having to question one's own certainties, I lived my sexuality in a very natural and free way, as it should be for everyone. - Victoria

I had paparazzi under my house morning and night. So, after four years of relationship, I finally revealed her name. I still have the paparazzi under my house morning and night, but at least I don't have to hide anything anymore. - Damiano

The value of the group - Protecting each other

But the real relationship, the real family, is between us. Our band. We believed in it from the first day, even before calling ourselves Måneskin (moonlight in Danish), even before Ethan drew a giant moon, on the poster for our first concert. We share everything, even the pain of the tragedy of Seid Visin, who committed suicide at 20 because he was a victim of racism. Being a group is what we should all do together: stay united and not retreat in the slightest in the face of abuses generated by a distorted vision of someone "being different|. - Thomas

Non ho l’età – like Gigliola (It references Gigliola Cinquetti who won both Sanremo and Eurovision with her song "Non ho l’età" which translates to Not old enough)

Before us, the only one to win Sanremo and Eurovision together was Gigliola Cinquetti (in 1964). Is there is something for which I feel I am not yet old enough for? No, honestly no. Maybe for kids. I'll be honest, I'm not enough to be a dad. - Damiano

Reached the sky - What fears still remain

We are more than in the dream, we have conquered the dream. To fly high this high, there is the risk is to fall and get hurt, but we will try not to end up like Icarus, who burns his wings with the sun. Everything is in our hands. And this - somewhat presumptuously - reassures us rather than frighten us ". - Damiano

(ORIGINAL INTERVIEW IN ITALIAN)

[Please note that I have changed some words or structure sentence, trying to make it so that the interview made more sense lol - I skipped the first two paragraphs, which was basically the interviewer gushing over how pretty the band is lmao (relatable).

Any mistakes in the translation are sorely mine, nothing was proofread, so apologies in advance]

[positivityforlesbians]

Sapphic underground made a YouTube post about the pressure put on lesbians to be "inclusive" of males and opposite sex attracted people and the toll it's been taking in our community, and to my great surprise, the majority of the comments on that post are supportive! There's even bi and straight women and gay men showing some love. It's just so nice to see actual lesbian expressing their mind and not getting immediately silenced 🥰

Wow, so I've looked it up and I think you refer to this comment, there is indeed a lot of likes under it !

I am a total fan of Sapphic Underground's channel, I posted one of her videos not as far as a few days ago but I cannot say I thought she would ever address this huge problem targetting our community. This goes to to show we are not making this up, being lesbians that would somehow invent a problem that so many people pretend is not there. I don't think she's super known on the internet, especially by those 2.0 lesbophobes who, let's be honest, generally really don't care about actual lesbian content despite trying their best to be like us, but they still can try to bully her out of her platform the second they all collectively find her to be a bad woman. It wouldn't be the first time. So because of that I think it's important to support her, that comment is brave. I'm glad she got so many likes there, I'm sure it was a positive sign for her to see we are a lot to think just like this and that she did well in speaking up. 👏

We cannot let non-lesbians dicktate to us what our words mean, what makes a lesbian a lesbian, how bigoted we are for not liking penises, how we are doing the worst of the worst for having this sexual orientation (being a lesbian, also known as being a homosexual girl/woman), how we should have our dating apps and in real life lesbian only spaces open to trans women (therefore males, a sex we will never be into) and thus ruining said spaces because even the kindest most gullible lesbians will get tired at some point and leave, seeing the most basic men use that as an excuse to also come in and make these spaces even more unsafe/ simply not lesbian spaces anymore, all of this is something we cannot ignore and so it makes sense she is talking about it. Being a lesbian Youtuber and video artist who focuses on making fun upbeat or poetic lesbian content doesn't make her blind to the modern western lesbian experience, this is pretty good to know ! So thank you for that message anon, more of the followers of this blog may open their eyes to this reality, since it's silenced, made invisible and gaslighted so often.

Why isn't lesbophobia taken any seriously while transphobia is nearly always considered with upper seriousness in lgbt spaces at large ? is the question we should all ask ourselves. It's not treason to think about it, to ask questions, to choose to prioritise our community, lesbians, after realising how much we've been made to suffocate and feel like second class citizens among people supposed to support and uplift us, not the other way round. More and more lesbians will speak out, because the anger keeps growing and nobody can successfully silence us, even if it cost us a platform, popularity, money, anything, we also have things to gain when finally speaking out. Defending lesbians, our reality, our history, our community, will always be a priority. ✨

[firelxdykatara]

I’m just really confused as to where this idea that Zuko is gaycoded came from. Like people are allowed to have that headcanon but I don’t understand where people are coming from when they try and claim that he was undisputedly gaycoded and trying to deny it is homophobic when he’s only ever shown romantic interest in women.

I made a pretty long post on the topic a while back, but the ultimate gist of it is this: there are a lot of elements of Zuko's status as an abuse victim and trauma survivor that resonate with queer folks. This is understandable and completely fine! However, there are some parts of the fandom who have taken that to the other extreme and will now insist that those elements are uniquely queer, and that they can only be read as some sort of veiled gay/coming out narrative, even though that doesn't make much sense since there is no part of Zuko's narrative which is unique to any sort of queer experience.

I think the problem really does stem from two things being conflated--Zuko's history of abuse and trauma, and trauma&abuse being something a lot of queer people have experienced. I suspect it goes something like 'I see a lot of myself in Zuko, and I was abused for being gay, therefore Zuko must be gay too in order to have had similar experiences.' This can then lead to feeling dismissed or invalidated when other people point out that those experiences are not unique to being queer--but on the flip side, abuse victims and trauma survivors whose abuse&trauma do not stem from queerness (even if they are queer themselves) can feel invalidated and dismissed by the implication that their trauma must be connected to their queerness or it isn't valid.

This is also where the 'people don't actually know what gay coded means' part comes in, and I realize now that I didn't actually get into what gay coding (and queer coding in general) actually means, since I was so hung up on pointing out how Zuko doesn't really fit the mold. (And the few elements that exist which could be said to count are because of the 'villains historically get queer coded bc Hays Code era' thing and mostly occur in Book 1, not because of how he acts as an abuse&trauma survivor.)

Under a cut because I kind of go on a tangent about gay/queer coding, but I swear I get back to the point eventually.

Queer coding (and it is notable that, with respect to Zuko, it is almost always framed as 'he couldn't possibly be attracted to girls', rather than 'he could be attracted to boys as well as girls' in these discussions, for... no real discernible reason, but I'll get into that in a bit) is the practice of giving characters 'stereotypically queer' traits and characteristics to 'slide them under the radar' in an era where having explicitly queer characters on screen was not allowed, unless they were evil or otherwise narratively punished for their queerness. (See: the extant history of villains being queer-coded, because if they were Evil then it was ok to make them 'look gay', since the story wasn't going to be rewarding their queerness and making audiences think it was in any way OK.) This is thanks to the Motion Picture Production Code (colloquially and more popularly known as the Hays Code), which was a set of guidelines which movies coming out of any major studio had to adhere to in order to be slated for public release and lasted from the early 1930s until it was finally abandoned in the late 60s.

The Hays Code essentially existed to ensure that the content of major motion pictures would not 'lower the moral standards' of the viewing public. It didn't just have to do with queerness--cursing was heavily monitored, sex outside of marriage was not allowed to be seen as desirable or tittilating, miscegenation was not allowed (most specifically interracial relationships between black and white people), criminals had to be punished lest the audience think that it was ok to be gay and do crime, etc. Since same-sex relations fell under 'sexual perversion', they could not be shown unless the 'perversion' were punished in some way. (This is also the origin of the Bury Your Gays trope, another term that is widely misunderstood and misapplied today.) To get around this, queer coding became the practice by which movies and television could depict queer people but not really, and it also became customary to give villains this coding even more overtly, since they would get punished by the end of the film or series anyway and there was nothing to lose by making them flamboyant and racy/overly sexual/promiscuous.

Over time, this practice of making villains flamboyant, sexually aggressive, &etc became somewhat separated from its origins in queer coding, by which I mean that these traits and tropes became the go-to for villains even when the creator had no real intention of making them seem queer. This is how you generally get unintentional queer-coding--because these traits that have been given to villains for decades have roots in coding, but people tend to go right to them when it comes to creating their villains without considering where they came from.

Even after the Hays Code was abandoned, the sentiments and practices remained. Having queer characters who weren't punished by the narrative for being queer was exceptionally rare, and it really isn't until the last fifteen or so years that we've seen any pushback against that. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is famous for being one of the first shows on primetime television to feature an explicitly gay relationship on-screen, and that relationship ended in one of the most painful instances of Bury Your Gays that I have ever personally witnessed. (Something that, fourteen years later, The 100 would visually and textually reference with Lexa's death. Getting hit by a bullet intended for someone else after a night of finally getting to be happy and have sex with her s/o? It wasn't remotely subtle. I don't even like Clexa, but that was incredibly rough to witness.)

However, bringing this back to Zuko, he really doesn't fit the criteria for queer coding for a number of reasons. First of all, no one behind the scenes (mostly a bunch of cishet men) was at all intending to include queer rep in the show. This wasn't a case where they were like 'well, we really wanted to make Zuko gay, but we couldn't get that past the censors, so here are a few winks and a nudge', because it just wasn't on their radar at all. Which makes sense--it wasn't on most radars in that era of children's programming. This isn't really an indictment, it's just a fact of the time--in the mid/late 00s, no one was really thinking about putting queer characters in children's cartoons. People were barely beginning to include them in more teen- and adult-oriented television and movies. It just wasn't something that a couple of straight men, who were creating a fantasy series aimed at young kids, were going to think about.

What few instances you can point to from the series where Zuko might be considered to exhibit coding largely happen in Book 1, when he was a villain, because the writers were drawing from typically villainous traits that had historically come from queer coding villains and had since passed into common usage as villainous traits. But they weren't done with any intention of making it seem like Zuko might be attracted to boys.

And, again, what people actually point to as 'evidence' of Zuko being queer-coded--his awkwardness on his date with Jin and his confrontation with Ozai being the big ones I can think of off the top of my head--are actually just... traits that come from his history of trauma and abuse.

As I said in that old post:

making [zuko’s confrontation of ozai] about zuko being gay and rejecting ozai’s homophobia, rather than zuko learning fundamental truths about the world and about his home and about how there was something deeply wrong with his nation that needed to be fixed in order for the world to heal (and, no, ‘homophobia’ is not the answer to ‘what is wrong with the fire nation’, i’m still fucking pissed at bryke about that), misses the entire point of his character arc. this is the culmination of zuko realizing that he should never have had to earn his father’s love, because that should have been unconditional from the start. this is zuko realizing that he was not at fault for his father’s abuse--that speaking out of turn in a war meeting in no way justified fighting a duel with a child.

is that first realization (that a parent’s love should be unconditional, and if it isn’t, then that is the parent’s fault and not the child’s) something that queer kids in homophobic households/families can relate to? of course it is. but it’s also something that every other abused kid, straight kids and even queer kids who were abused for other reasons before they even knew they were anything other than cishet, can relate to as well. in that respect, it is not a uniquely queer experience, nor is it a uniquely queer story, and zuko not being attracted to girls (which is what a lot of it seems to boil down to, at the end of the day--cutting down zuko’s potential ships so that only zukka and a few far more niche ships are left standing) is not necessary to his character arc. nor does it particularly make sense.

And, regarding his date with Jin:

(and before anyone brings up his date with jin--a) he enjoyed it when she kissed him, and b) he was a traumatized, abused child going out on a first date. of course he was fucking awkward. have you ever met a teenage boy????)

Zuko is socially awkward and maladjusted because he was abused by his father as a child and has trouble relating to people as a result. He was heavily traumatized and brutally physically injured as a teenager, and it took him years to begin to truly recover from the scars that left on his psyche (and it's highly likely, despite the strides he made in canon, that he has a long way to go, post series; it's such a pity that we never got any continuation comics >.>). He was not abused for being gay or queer--he was abused because his father believed he was weak, and part of Zuko's journey was realizing that his father's perception of strength was flawed at its core. That his entire nation had rotted from the inside out, and the regime needed to be changed in order for the world--including his people--to begin to heal.

That could be commingled with a coming out narrative, which is completely fine for headcanons (although I personally prefer not to, because, again, we have more than enough queer trauma already), but it simply doesn't exist in canon. Zuko was not abused or traumatized for being queer, and his confrontation with Ozai was not about him coming out or realizing any fundamental truth about himself--it was about realizing something fundamental about his father and his nation, and making the choice to leave them behind so that he could help the Avatar grow stronger and force things to change when he got back.

TL;DR: at the end of the day, none of the traits, scenes, or behavior Zuko exhibits which shippers tend to use to claim he was gay-coded are actually evidence of coding--they aren't uniquely queer experiences, as they stem from abuse that was not related in any way to his sexuality, and they are experiences that any kid who suffered similar abuse or trauma could recognize and resonate with. (Including straight kids, and queer kids who were abused for any reason other than their identity.) And, finally, Zuko can be queer without erasing or invalidating his canon attraction to girls, and it's endlessly frustrating that the 'Zuko is gay-coded' crowd refuses to acknowledge that.

[hiriajuu-suffering]

Reasons I believe in Polyamory

I’ll preface this by saying I’m not attractive enough to be able to have more than a single partner at once, but there is a reason for that, and really, the thesis of this wall of text below: heteronormative relationship standards in every culture have always been, and will continue to always be, more about possession than love in a post-imperialistic world.

Personally, I’m a huge proponent of engendered sexuality variance to the tone of males have a constant slow drip of libido and a female’s sex drive hits them like a freight train once a month (in mammalian bioepigenetics, this makes sense). I’m inclined to infer, because I’m not idyllically normatively attractive, only a fraction of a percentage of women will be attracted to me 24-27 days of any given month. As a cisgendered man who is regrettably straight, having the least attractive genoethnic identity intersection (South Asian Muslim) in Western culture, I’m never actually presented with the choices to act on a poly mindset (in fact, I would be ridiculed for it because people think it aligns with some other gross tribal stereotype when it couldn’t be further from the truth). In retrospect, I have everything to gain from interpreting the main benefit of an intimate relationship as ownership like heteronormative culture generally does yet I still think disavowing poly as a legitimate personal choice is immoral.

I know saying monogamous relationships are more about possession than love will offend lots of people, so before you throw hate at me for your emotionally defensive skepticism, hear me out. An unflinching, unyielding love is seen as the highest parameter in any type of romance. So why is it cheating is so much of a bigger problem than a dry spell specifically? Is it because it’s legitimately a breach of trust, or is it more about “if I can’t have you, no one can”? More importantly, does it go a step further and say “if I don’t want you, no one should”? To me, any sort of dry spell (whether physically, emotionally, mentally) signifies a much larger breach of trust than simply having been shared because it shows said commitment in the relationship was not unflinching, not unyielding. The monogamous lens looks at others like: I want to have the best partner, not just so that I’m happy, but no one else can receive the specific happiness I get. Doesn’t that whole mindset come off as brutish? Just me? Well, maybe your pitchforks will start coming down when you realize monogamy is a function of toxic patriarchy on both feminine and masculine ends.

There are bioevolutionary reasons for toxic femininity to value the possession aspect of a relationship over its substantive “quality of life” components, the birth-giving gender in any animalistic specie always had to be beheld to a provider they reproduce with. Does it not then represent a sense of feminine fragility when a single mother immediately demands a long-term relationship and nothing else? If I’m to believe said woman is capable of genuine lust in her system, having a child shouldn’t evaporate all carnal desires completely and, therefore, should leave room for compromise. Said stance also indicates she made some sort of error in judgment of her chosen reproductive mate and feels entitled another man ought remedy her strife even though, evolutionarily speaking, he has nothing to gain from helping to rear offspring not of his kin. Harsh, to be sure, but it does show in the obnoxiousness of the connotation of becoming a stepdad being a positive one and becoming a stepmom assumes the motivation of some gain in status (wealth, fame, power, etc.) which I would argue is negative. Where does toxic masculinity come into play? Desire for possession on the part of a male promotes the viability and exclusivity of his own children with his most desirable partner. While that’s damn near nowhere as compelling, it has to be stated because there are always two benefactors to patriarchy. Patriarchy is not a zero sum game, patriarchy seeks to concentrate all familial social benefits in the monogamously-driven, heteronormative genus, away from those who deviate from the ideal picture of stereotypical gender roles. The ill effects of patriarchal standards exist in every human civilization, but the ontological root to the specific brand of patriarchy that oppresses all genders today was spread by a culture that uniquely preached monogamy.

Polygamy, in a historical sense, was a testament to the more status a person of the provider gender could achieve, the more their genetics would proliferate. Many cultures globally practiced this, the issue is, the ones that didn’t were the ones who, often violently, “conquered” the ones that did. Christian fundamentalism is in every fiber of international morality, whether the nation in question believes in Christianity or not is often irrelevant. Monogamy is enforced, anything outside of that is deemed as necessarily being deviant (whether choosing to be alone or choosing more connections than a monocule). Fetishization of the step relation is eluding to this deviance in a not-so-subtle way because it’s something where its allure is derived from its forbiddenness moreso than its convenience, every one of these scenarios has a subtext of implicit gain, not loss, in engagement. Meaning, the idea is planted because a hot person is there not because a person in general is there and can satiate an urge. Tl;dr - we believe polyamory is a morally negative act because the Holy Roman Empire did and every nation that spawned from it spread, imparted, and coerced that ideal on every culture it came into contact with. Before the Holy Roman Empire, no historical documents made distinctions to behest multiple lovers as desanctifying of life itself, not even the coalescing of nations that made up the Holy Roman Empire before its inception.

We are now in an era when women have access to full reproductive control, yet we still see men lust more than women, e.g. archetypal lesbian tendencies versus archetypal gay male tendencies. Do we not question why this is the case? All lifeforms are hardwired with a desire to survive and reproduce, so why does that drive not reach equity when risk does? There are two answers, and it could even be both: women are only socially conditioned to have sex via patriarchal pressures and don’t have as much inherent desire to reproduce OR sex is a means-to-an-end to exclusively possess a desired provider, whatever said person provides. If said person has a trait valuable enough to want to possess, is it not self-contrived to keep that quality to oneself, not share it with the world where it can provide more utility? Heteronormative relationships, in a sense, are anti-altruistic at their very core. As facetious as this sounds, either of these trains of thought are validated by men being more willing to engage in polyamory than women, not because men are somehow any less loyal than women. On its own, I feel this line of reasoning is enough to justify a vehement disgust of polyamory as immoral, but I want to conclude on the most pivotal facet to this conversation and not just heavily imply monogamy encroachment on moral turpitude is problematic at best.

As I mentioned a few times, I am likely to be a spoke on a polycule, not a member with multiple connections. Exclusive possession is something I probably stand more to gain from than any woman, logically and realistically, given the current social climate and general global beauty standards. My advocacy of polyamory stems from me accepting I may not be enough to be the full extent of happiness my romantic interest desires. That doesn’t even come from a place of insecurity, it comes from a place knowing I could never be perfect even if its pursuit is a righteous cause. I see real insecurity as a fear of loss when the rules of engagement you put into place were exclusivity: you don’t want your partner looking at anyone else because it’s disadvantageous to you, meaning you’re not fixated on their best interest and looking at relationships in said manner is deliberately selfish. To me, the best frame of reference to morality in interpersonal social connections is altruism. Yeah, self-love is important and knowing your own boundaries is beneficial but everyone else’s boundaries don’t have to match yours. I’m not anti-monogamist, really. I’m more anti-polyamorist discontent.

Not having thought this deeply isn’t an excuse, either.

[wallscomedown]

Queerbating and Harry’s image

Harry Styles tm (brand and image) has let to people thinking he has been trying to “queerbate".The term "queerbating” refers to a marketing strategy used in order to  attract the LGBTQ audience into a specific product. it is important to mention that, for example, usually hints about someone sexuality are thrown, and, at the same time, that person is being painted as possibly being queer so as to indeed, attract queer people. But the subject’s sexuality is never openly addressed. So, via queerbating, the marketing agents or creators are able to appeal to the LGBTQ market, while avoiding any backlash from the homophobic market.

So, now referring to Harry, the general public has this idea he is this straight white man, and some people tend to be confused by why so many hints are given by him about his sexuality and about him possibly being queer or for example, bisexual, given the fact people noticed that the fine line cover and his outfit in it might be the representation of a bisexual flag. So he seems to be giving all this hints about queerness by dressing a certain way and by saying things like “(…) female(…) not that important” and throwing all these hints, without actually admitting anything. This way he would be getting the queer public’s attention, as they could be drawn to him because of the representation and support he appears to be showing towards the LGBTQ community.

But, when asked, he doesn’t give a full on answer about where his sexuality lies, and about his preference regarding a partner. Harry often says “who cares” and does not answer a question with "yes im queer”  or "no, im in fact straight" (pardon the pun). Needles to say, Harry, after throwing all these hints toward his sexuality and towards him not being straight, and after waving and signing pride flags, he is constantly rumored to be dating models throughout the years. So, its understandable why people, who are not so into Harry and who do not know everything about him, might be angry.

He is giving the impression everything feminine thing he does like wearing dresses, and all the references he gives about the LGTQ community are only to attract people who belong to that community into the fandom. Of course this idea is wrong, its safe to assume harry styles would never consider doing that, the thing is, Harry is found in a position where i think he cannot come out properly and say “im gay”, “im bisexual”, “im whatever”, because of his management team (jeffrey and irwin azzof) and because of the repercussion that would have. I believe he was probably advised to say (when asked about his sexuality) that it doesn’t matter, that its not an important topic, and that its something he doesn’t want to discuss. In other words, to avoid answering wether he is straight or wether he is queer. I believe if it were up to harry, he most definitely would not have a problem admitting or sharing where his sexual preferences lie, but, because he is immersed in a multimillion dollar worth industry, he does not get to choose what he can and what he can’t say, as some things he says might affect his image and the way the public see him, immediately having and effect in the sales and in the economic part of his career. of course its not only his career who would be jeopardized, it would also impact every single person behind his brand, like his record label and his management team.

The image an artist has takes long to form, but its a very fragile one. Harry has been portrayed since a very young age (since being a minor) as a guy who fancied older woman, and a “womanizer”, and has been rumored to date numerous famous women, so this story about him always dating hot models has been pushed since he was 17 years old. Of course, the people who look closely into it can see that story is not completely true so as not to say completely false. Besides, in the late moments of one direction and onwards, a CLEAR change in harrys image happens. We no longer see “frat boy harry” always surrounded by women, but we see a more delicate and slightly femenine harry, but of course, who continues to constanlty date woman. I believe this change in image was allowed and was posible because of the success in the portrayal of harrys persona of being a womanizer. This idea was so well imposed that him, dressing with a bit of more colorful clothes, would not bring doubts towards his sexuality.

The thing is, if Harry Styles came out, he could easily become one of the biggest icons for queer people in the world nowadays, helping a lot of young people accept and come to terms with their sexuality, seeing he himself might be queer as well. But instead, he appears to remain quiet and doesnt address his sexuality.

Basically, what i want to make clear is the fact that harry is NOT queerbating, but his marketing makes him seem like he actually is. My belief is harry is a queer man, but is not able to state it publicly for various reasons, being a better option just to remain ambiguous and silent about the subject. The term “glass closet”, which is known in the fandom, can apply to Harry’s situation, as he might be in a position where he shows himself as being queer, he dresses in a stereotypical queer way and has queer mannerisms thus everybody assumes he is queer and everyone is aware of his gender identity because its made clear and obvious, but nobody actually acknowledges it. 

Another important point in this is that Harrys fandom is immense. Thats why its natural that its divided into many groups of people that believe different things. Its safe to say that a big number of people who like harry and like his music are also physically attracted to him, and its true a lot of times people tend to sexualize him and everything he does. Basically, a big amount of fans want to f*ck him, meaning, sex is selling in this occasion. “Sex sells” is a well known marketing strategy, and because his team constantly pushed this womanizer image on him, this strategy actually did work.

So, by remaining silent towards this topic (his sexuality) harry is able to keep the large amount of fans who are physically attracted to him, and therefore listen to his music, and the queer fans who feel represented and feel safe listening to him and having him as an idol.

Thank you for reading, sorry if some parts are not as clear, english is my second language

[fairydust-stuff]

Ode to Hannah Annafellows

I noticed Hannah doesn’t get as much attention as Alois or Claude. I know a lot of her writing makes no sense half the time but lets be honest Alois and Claude suffered from inconsistencies as well. What we do have is fairly interesting though, so I wanted to write an piece that gives attention to my favorite Demon Lady.

Hannah the Demon Hannah used to be just like Sebastian and Claude for filling contracts for a quick meal. She was board and just killing time until she met Luka and fulfilled his wish to slaughter everyone who was mean to him and his big brother. “That is the first time anyone ever thanked Me." at first glance it seems like Hannah went from sinner to saint however a closer look reveals. Hannah is still a demon regardless of her newfound humanity; her true nature makes her a dangerous foe. 

Here's the thing Hannah isn't a good person but she's, not a completely evil like bad fanfic's portrays her as, and not without kindness but she's still a viper. Hannah would gladly tattle on Claude to Alois, she would never keep the spiders confidence. In fact she'd use the opportunity to try and get a heartbroken Alois to listen to her. Hannah has shown herself to be very manipulative and sneaky. She spent her whole time at Trancy manor patiently waiting for Claude to screw up so she could step in. Outside of Alois and Luka she's not exactly warm hearted people forget this is the women who was fine turning everyone into zombies and watching them tear each other apart on Alois's orders. She had every intention of hurting Sebastian in that fight. She's probly killed others off screen too and the stuff with Ciel which I’ll get to later. This reflects that although Hannah is capable of love, humanity with the exception of Alois and Luka are still basically insects to her.

Hannah and Alois Everyone seems to forget especially Claude x Hannah shippers is Hannah is Alois's creature even more so then Claude. In fact they have certain traits in common. Both of them are protective of those they love, (Alois luka and Claude, Hannah Alois, luka) forgiving of trespasses by dear ones, (Alois forgave Claude, Hannah forgave Alois) can be incredibly vindictive if crossed, (Just look at how they got Sebastian and Ciel good) know how to manipulate and trick people in order to get what they want. They both can keep up a charade for a fairly long time. (Hannah everyone, Alois lord trancy) Hannah is both the tinker bell and Wendy to Alois's peter pan. (Without the romantic feelings)

This is why oc x Claude fics annoy me so much. (Seriously, Claude couldn't keep a human female alive around those two. Alois would go sobbing to Hannah and she would cut the girls throat for being in the way of her highnesse's happiness. Also Hannah would never aid a random person unless that girl meant something to Alois. So any oc finance of Ciel's would be screwed in that situation. I strongly think her attack on Ciel was a direct retaliation for him stabbing Alois as well as to help Alois seize Ciel's body. However the fact of the matter is their relationship is troubling, manipulations by Claude and the fact both of them are socially impaired creates miscommunication about the others intentions. One being a demon that’s not used to looking after an abused human, and one being a mentally ill abused child.

I've noticed Hannah wears the same maid uniform that the maids that prepared Alois for Trancy wore, despite her good intentions Hannah comes across as predatory. Her eyes glow red and she slowly licks her fingers like a snake. There are scenes where she's crouched over or straddling Alois's unconscious body in an awkward position. Her biggest problem is unlike Claude who doesn’t care and can calmly make observations and cool headed decisions. Hannah's sincere love may cause her to be over zealous and over stepping into the comfort zone of a young boy who is wary of adults and their desire to be close to him. (Not that this excuses his behavior) Yet it can be argued Alois is as dependent on her as he is with Claude. When Claude hurts Alois emotionally Hannah is the one he goes to either to take his frustrations out on her, or to simply cry his eyes out. She is the one he gets to take him to ciels manor so he can warn him about Claude and later Alois relies on her to help him carry out his plans in the maze. This suggests even in earlier episodes she held some importance to him even when he didn't trust her.

Claude and Hannah The two of them have a very interesting dynamic. Claude is the beloved cherished servant Alois constantly showers with compliments and as a result of his affections, Claude has the kid wrapped around his finger. “My heart is trapped in your spider webs, I love you my highness." Alois declares in the last episode. In contrast Hannah gets all the abuse Alois even rips her eye out for looking at him wrong. “She creeps me out" Alois sincerely tells Sebastian in his introduction episode. Claude yet both of them are attracted to Alois's fiery soul. “I do so love your passion." Claude thinks near the end of Spiders Intention “As do I." Hannah adds. However as the two dominant figures in Alois's life they are at odds with each other. And although I’ve heard different takes on Claude and Hannah's relationship some suggesting love or sexual intimacy.

I tend to view them as enemies who dislike each other greatly, but see the benefit in an alliance against greater threats. Although I don't doubt a sexual relationship is possible, I think it would be purely for physical and manipulative purposes. I know some fans are convinced Claude is gay or a pedophile but honestly Claude is a demon therefore he most likely has no limits to what he will and won't screw. 

Claude although incapable of love himself is possessive he views Alois as his property bought and paid for by their contract, fated to be eaten when Claude grows tired of him. He is suspicious of Hannah and doesn’t want her to steal his meal but also regards her as his toy or as he so crudely put “Hole for my sheath." referring both to the fact she is the keeper of an actual sword and perhaps making a sexual reference. He even protects her from Sebastian at one point, yet Claude himself treats both of his so called possessions like trash. Hannah gets it the worst he throws her around hits her and constantly pulls a painful sword out of her body. Yet he's also dependent on her, as shown in spider’s intention Claude makes the triplets and Hannah do the actual work.

Although he insists the work is beneath him, I’d argue Claude is too proud to admit Hannah is better at pleasing Alois then he is. As shown when she suggests bluebells in Alois's room in contrast to the roses Claude wanted. Hannah seems to dislike Claude she is jealous of the love Alois has for him and angry at how false he is. “You don't deserve to be at his side, the only one who does is Luka Macken" she states. Later she seems to display open hatred for Claude instead of simple distaste Suggesting Alois use his wish to bind Claude to him forever and saying that she would happily break Claude’s legs for him. Most likely retaliation for his murder and betrayal of Alois himself. However later she does except Claude into her family and take him to limbo on Alois's behest while his soul is in side of her. Suggesting she has the ability to forgive and forget. Anti-Hero Hannah I know fans praise Ciel and Sebastian as an anti-heroes but no their villain protagonists. Both Ciel and Sebastian are obsessed with their goals which are purely selfish. In contrast Hannah is the closest thing this series has to a hero. So anti-hero I guess just to be fair. Her whole goal is to save Alois and his brother she even saves Claude from dying permanently and she kills herself to free their souls on the off chance they can all go to Nervinna. Think about her whole role taking abuse, saving children and forgiving her abusers and helping them too find a kind of peace. Even Ciel is able to relax as a demon knowing Sebastian won't munch on his soul.

She also goes through a huge change in her attitude from careless predator to someone who's starting to figure out she is capable of emotions like love and caring. But Why is she so understanding of Alois's abuse how can she love him? I’ve wondered this myself I know it was because she swallowed his brother, but I think their might be a deeper reason. I think Hannah gets Alois Trancy more than anyone else. (Not that it’s saying much everyone else in Alois life except Luka was extremely self-absorbed) She's a demon a demon who felt lonely and board and did horrible things that's what demon do lash out at the world because they've been rejected by heaven. So when Alois lashes out because he's scared or hurting Hannah can’t hate him, because I think she's been there many times and done far worse crimes then the human before her. She's had centuries to do things like start wars and topple empires. So when Alois hurts her Hannah can’t help but understand and relate to him. Which is what makes Hannah so fascinating she's a demon who can be nasty but still manages to be kind, understanding, and embrace penance, and forgiveness.

[vanillacoolatta]

Before middle school, I didn’t know that gay people existed.

During school, I identified as bisexual.

After graduating, I’m trying to be comfortable stating that I’m aro-ace.

This is a long post in which I describe my experiences with dating during my school years and the beginning of my self-acceptance afterwards. This is very, very long, so I inserted a “keep reading” tab.

Trigger warnings for brief alcohol/drug mentions (not about me), a toxic relationship, brief strong language at the end, and internalized queerphobia. Do not read if these make you uncomfortable.

When I was 12, I learned of the LGBT+ community.

When I was 13, I started questioning my sexuality and gender orientation.

I grew up in a conservative part of the midwest US, where “gay” was a swear word and I had, as such, never heard of such a thing. I knew absolutely nothing about the LGBT+ community - didn’t even know it existed. I cannot overexaggerate this; literally 0 knowledge that men could like men or women could like women (let alone other stuff). The very first time I heard the term “LGBT” was when I moved to a bluer state in the northeast, where rich old white people inhabited most places but their grandchildren were much more progressive.

I had a best friend who came out to me as pansexual and transgender. Naturally, I felt comfortable enough to come out to him as bisexual and genderfluid. 

Now, of course, this was one of the most confusing periods of my life. I was barely a teenager, new to the sixth grade, and coming back to a school system after having been away for a year. I was making new friends and learning a new way of life. I was stressed out and generally confused about most things, which probably contributed to a lot of things.

I jumped around schools a lot, but we finally found one to stay around a while and I started making friends. I ended up mostly drifting around friendgroups but made one friend in particular who had the same classes as me, so we hung out a bit more. He eventually came out to me as a trans guy. He wasn’t a very good teacher, but the information he gave me served as a stepping stone to get me into further research. A few months later, I came out to him as bisexual and genderfluid. I thought I was bisexual because I noticed attractive traits in both guys and girls that we knew. I thought I was genderfluid because I didn’t feel great being called a girl all the time but didn’t feel okay to make the jump all the way to being called a boy. (for reference, I was born female.)

This led into my first relationship with another friend of mine the following year. Our school had a Halloween dance every year and I seemed to be the only person without a date, so I guess I tried to convince myself that I had a crush on this girl, who we can call Ella. I genuinely convinced myself I “liked” her (not the first time - this exact thing had happened to me in literally kindergarten when all the girls were talking about their crushes so I picked a random boy to pretend I “liked”) and asked her to go to the dance with me. She agreed, we went, and by the end of the night we agreed to date. This went on for a few weeks at most, when one day she told me in social studies that we should break up because we never did anything “couple-like”. I readily agreed and we went on with our lives as friends, even through the beginning of high school.

A year after that, in 8th grade, I got into the online scene, but not like you might think. My app of choice? Google+. Yeah. I wasn’t allowed to have traditional social media, so that was my compromise. I, of course, went through every phase under the sun during this year (anime, emo, SuperWhoLock, you name it), and therefore got into online roleplaying. This is how I met a girl that we’ll call “Ariel”. We roleplayed together for months and I eagerly dictated this to my friend, who questioned frequently if we were “just friends” or not. Being a paranoid 14-year-old, I panicked and sent Ariel a message asking how she felt about online relationships. (We had video called and such before, so we were both confident that neither was some creep lying about our age.) She replied enthusiastically and we collectively decided to try dating. We were together for two or three months until she, like Ella, said that we never did “couple-like” things and she would rather we just be friends. She even dictated her new relationship to me (turns out she had been seeing a guy at her school without telling either of us the situation), which led to a lot of insecurity for me. This made me feel jealous because I felt like I had lost my best friend - she barely texted me anymore, let alone held a conversation. This jealous feeling seemingly reinforced my alloromantic (”experiencing-romance”) status through my freshman year and into my sophomore year, when I met the next person I dated.

This went on for a long, long time until finally, at the end of the school year and 6 months into our relationship, he gave me a deadline and said we had to break up if I wouldn’t be in an open relationship. Again, I was desperate beyond measure to be in a close relationship with somebody and, having no other friends at the time, reluctantly accepted this since I didn’t think I had a choice. After two more months of namecalling, blameshifting, and guiltripping, I called him, sobbing, and told him I wouldn’t do it anymore. I broke up with him and tried to move on with my life, but it felt impossible since nobody else, not even my parents, had known any of this had happened. I’m only now starting to move past it and accept that I’m worth more than that, but it’s been a rocky road.

This time around, I thought I had learned from my mistakes. He (genderqueer, we’ll call him Martin) was a year older than me and was wrapped up in a lot of drama, but I didn’t know this until we started dating.

He had some sort of ankle injury and we had a mutual friend, so I helped him carry his backpack to a class we had together when he asked for my phone number. Thinking this would lead to another good friendship, I readily agreed and moved on with my day. That night, he texted me, telling me that he had a crush on me since the beginning of the year and asking if he could take me to Homecoming. At this point, I was desperately wanting for a close, personal relationship, and so accepted. We went and he asked to kiss me at the end of the night, which I hesitantly agreed to.

We were thrown into almost a year-long relationship, in which I discovered his problems with alcohol, weed, cigarettes, and cheating. (I was 15, he was 16!! very illegal to be drinking and smoking!!!! i tried to ignore it, but learn from my mistakes!! if this happens to you and you fall in with the wrong crowd, get out of there!!)

He told me 2 months in that he was polyamorous, but I was and am very uncomfortable with the idea of personally being in an open relationship, so he told me that he would respect my wishes and remain monogamous while we were together. This was a lie. He cheated frequently, since I wouldn’t have sex with him, and pretended he was kicked out of his house so that he would have an excuse to be sleeping at someone else’s (and cheating all the time). He bragged about this to his friends, had the person he was cheating with brag about it, and took advantage of the fact that I refused to know his phone password (he offered when we first got together, but I didn’t want to snoop through his personal stuff so I said no).

He tried to start a lot of fights, calling me names and blaming things (like his substance abuse) on me, telling me I stressed him out too much. I fell into the darkest part of my life so far, distancing myself from all of my friends and family, and barely sleeping or eating. I kept telling him I wasn’t very comfortable kissing him (I thought it was since he was my first kiss) and needed time to calm down when he asked me to, but he kept initiating stuff like that in the hallways and I eventually gave in, choosing instead to go to the bathroom to hide afterwards. This was only the surface, but it makes me too sick to talk about the rest. (Nothing else physical, thank god)

Over this whole time, I read fanfiction. I read loads and loads of self-insert fanfiction. I was desperately searching for that personal connection, for that feeling you get when you think you can tell somebody anything. I yearned for it, craved it even, and was wholly unhealthy for me in that I spent all of my free time doing so. I’ve stopped that now, but it’s still difficult for me when I start to feel really lonely.

I have only ever had one other relationship, and that was for about a month near the end of my last year of school. (We can call him Tyler) He identified as cisgender and straight, while I tentatively identified as a gay transgender guy to my friends. A mutual friend told me that Tyler liked me and so, when Tyler asked for my phone number, I spilled in my first text about my gender identity so that, if he wanted to, he would never have to ask me out and I would never have to feel awkward. A few days later, I agreed to a movie date - I didn’t feel anything romantic towards him, but I guess I was trying to prove to myself that I wasn’t “broken” and that I could mean something to somebody.

After this date, we continued to meet up around town in some of my favorite places. During these times, we shallowly discussed my gender orientation and he asked if “this made him bisexual”, to which I had no answer. After dating for a month or two, we stopped meeting up because of timing issues (work, volunteering, and finishing our last year of school got in the way). Slowly, we stopped texting. This one was mostly my fault, since I’ve been known to go radio-silent for weeks before sending a random text at 3AM. He texted me after not speaking for two weeks, telling me in seven words or less that we should break up because we never text and, once again, never did “couple-like” things. I agreed calmly, feeling much more comfortable with this since I had a best friend at the time, and we pretty much never spoke again.

Moral of the story? My whole life, I tried to put myself in a box - don’t do that. After only a few months of even knowing about the existence of the queer community, I felt pressured to come out and call myself something. I wanted to “fit in” with the people around me, who I saw dating people and having boyfriends and girlfriends and asking me why I didn’t have one. This led to a lot of bad decisions and unnecessary negativity in my life, which led to a lot of the negative habits I still deal with today. 

This isn’t to say that these relationships didn’t teach me something. Ella taught me how to have fun with people at that Halloween dance and helped me to make other friends. Ariel helped me to realize that online relationships and friendships aren’t really my thing. Martin, fucked up as he left me, started me on the path to realizing how to cut off toxic relationships and recognizing that I do not exist solely for other people’s pleasure. Tyler was the one who opened my eyes to the boxes I had made for myself when he asked me if he was still straight (he is, I was a glitch in the system since I was trans and he has never and will never be attracted to anyone AMAB) and inadvertently helped me to start questioning my orientation again.

The thing that’s most messed up for me here is that I think I could have learned all this if these people had merely been my best friends (minus some of the unwanted kissing and stuff). I would have gone to that dance with Ella and my other friends. I would have realized I was uncomfortable with online relationships just by observing friends that Ariel introduced me to. Martin treated his friends really shittily too and I think I still would have realized my worth (probably would have listened in the beginning when somebody tried to warn me, too). I likely would have started questioning my orientation again regardless of Tyler, he just helped me to do it sooner.

The only reason I had these romantic relationships is because I felt pressured to do so. Pressured by my friends? Definitely. Inadvertently pressured by the people who asked me out? For sure. Subconsciously pressured by myself? More absolutely than either of those other things. I came out within two months of learning about the LGBT+ community. I stayed with this identity I had “chosen” for years and years, only ever “tweaking” my perception slightly, never stopping to wonder if I was wrong. 

What I did wonder was if I was broken. If a past relationship had left me so shattered that I lost the ability to feel. In reality, I never possessed the ability to feel what I was looking for. I never felt romantic attraction in all those years - not once. I was terrified to think that I couldn’t be romantic and forced myself to believe that what I was experiencing was romantic feelings because I didn’t want to admit that maybe I just...couldn’t.

I still struggle with this. I still struggle to say that I’m aromantic and asexual, but I am. I have to deal with that now, but I’m slowly coming to terms with it. I finally feel comfortable in my own head without having to lie about the nature of my interpersonal relationships. I officially un-came out about my gender, since I’m still actively questioning, though I’m leaning towards somewhere nonbinary.

I feel more free in this aspect than I ever have. Without forcing myself to think about having to come up with a romantic relationship, I’ve eliminated a major source of stress in my life. I can openly recognize that if this ever changes, I can just...let it change. I don’t have to jump through hoops to call myself alloromantic if it turns out I feel romantically toward somebody.

Not all aromantic or asexual people have been in romantic relationships. Not all who have regret it. Not all who have were uncomfortable. This is my way of learning, my way of feeling, and that fact comforts me. The fact that there are people like me, that I am not broken, and that my past experiences don’t change the validity of my current reality. I am proud to be aromantic, something I have never felt before. I am proud of myself knowing that, even though I’ve settled on a name for myself, I can decide to change that if I start to feel differently. There is no “good enough” anymore, because there is no standard I have to meet in order to identify as myself. I am me, and I am a human being who changes and fluxes and rises and falls like the tide.

You are not broken. You are you. You are a human being who changes and fluxes and that’s okay. You will always be good enough, because you are you.

[whitehotharlots]

TERF war

I took feminist lit and theory courses as an undergraduate, in 2003 and 04. For the time, the courses were incredibly trans inclusive (bear in mind this was a year before Jon Stewart would dismiss Dennis Kucinich’s suggestion of appointing a trans SCOTUS justice, referring to the hypothetic appointee as “the honorable chick with dick”). A good 20% of the course was dedicated to reading books by and about trans people. We even got a visit from Leslie Feinberg—the person who literally coined the term transgender, and one of the kindest souls I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.

The foundational, explicit understanding I was taught in these classes was that biological sex is innate, a fixed fact of a person’s bodily being, whereas gender is a fluid and malleable social construct. No one could have gotten through these classes thinking the opposite.

The utility of this understanding is easy to grasp: by denying the fixity of gender, feminists were able to undermine social and interpersonal structures that had traditionally denied women freedom, choice, dignity, and agency. A woman was not biologically destined to a life of domestic servitude; nor was she naturally inclined to be more submissive or deferential. Most germane to this discussion, this understanding validated the existence and experience of gender non-conforming lesbians: just because they were not traditionally feminine didn’t mean they weren’t women, or that they were in need of any fixing.

Very recently—within the last 5 or 6 years, as the abstract language of feminism has permeated the wider culture and gotten watered down for sake of digestibility—the poles have shifted. Now, we are told, it is actually gender which is fixed and innate, a metaphysical force lurking within us, suppressed by social pressures, unleashed gloriously with the aid of surgery and supplemental hormones. Biological sex, meanwhile, is a construct that doesn’t exist and shouldn’t even factor in to one’s analysis of gender relations. Sex is hereby an utter fabrication, a projection of the sick evils of normalized (cis male) consciousness engrained upon people’s erstwhile blank bodies.  Taken to extreme, we are told this therefore means trans women can get periods and that there is “literally zero” difference between trans and cis women. Ergo, having a uterus doesn’t make you a woman, biological or otherwise—it simply makes you a “uterus haver.”

The utility of this shift comes from the fact that trans self-actualization relies not just on social positioning but on bodily experience. Trans peoples’ mental wellbeing often hinges on their having access to the medical interventions required to get their body to conform to their innate sense of gender. Since we live in a country where few people have access to basic healthcare, trans people have had to medicalize their position—assert a fundamental and harmful mind/body disconnect—in order to have these interventions regarded as essential, rather than elective.  

So while it’s perfectly understandable and useful, this shift nonetheless represents a profound upending of decades of feminist thought, and I’m shocked that it doesn’t appear to have even been deliberated upon. It was asserted through tumblrs and tweets and everydayfeminism dot com posts, everyone kind of nodded their heads in agreement, and that has been that. For the most part.

Now, we might able to say that the reversal is simply academic: trans people and cis women each need to advance their respective theories of gender and sex to serve as the basis of political programs that might afford safety and respect to each group. There’s no need, necessarily, to concern ourselves too exclusively with the details. Consider a parallel: anyone who was actually involved in theoretical side of gay rights in the 70’s-90’s knows that saying gay people were “born gay” was not a universally agreed upon assertion. Many argued that this was essentially a reactionary frame which stigmatized homosexuality, making it seem like gays would have chosen to be straight if only their brains or genes hadn’t screwed things up. Eventually however, the “born this way” line prevailed, became mainstream, and was the basis of most of the gay rights campaigns of this century. Most of the people who disagreed with it on academic grounds still supported it, at least publicly, once they became aware of its political utility. Why can’t we do the same with today’s split conceptualizations of gender and sex?

Seriously, why can’t we?

The sex/gender-fluid/innate reversal came around the time when trans people started receiving their first regular, non-dismissive appearances in US media. This was the first time most people had been bothered to think seriously about gender, and the first time that the existence of trans people was admitted to as something that wasn’t freakish or a punchline. That’s a huge positive, obviously. And it happened with surprisingly little mainstream pushback (compare the responses to Laverne Cox’s appearance in Orange is the New Black with the intense outrage that accompanied Ellen Degeneres coming out just 15 years earlier—the difference is astounding).

This is where things get troublesome. Many established feminists, especially second wavers, were upset to see their life’s work upended in such a way. Some reacted horribly dismissively. Others wrote thoughtful, seemingly even-handed pieces that nonetheless seemed calculated to subtly dismiss the experiences of trans people, like by repeatedly misgendering trans authors. And still others respectfully expressed objections to or concerns with mainstream trans rights assertions. These writers tended to operate in either academic or upper-middlebrow spaces, and their prose is consequently calm, erudite, and often super dense. The rebuttals to these pieces came from places like jezebel, loveisarainbow dot com, or geocities.com/sunsetstrip/3765/madtransbitch. These pieces are easily digestible, frequently angry or even violent, and hyperbolic without exception, accusing the cis feminists of fomenting or even committing violence against trans people. In the court of woke public opinion, the second wavers did not stand a chance. They were accused—sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly—of abject hatred of trans people, blamed for suicides and murders, and grouped in with the racists and homophobes of yore. Within a very short period of time, those who haven’t learned to be quiet have been shunted away to the darkest academic backwaters (or they live in the UK, where university cultural studies is dominated by second wavers).

But, again, why not just be quiet? Honestly, that’s my preferred approach. Maybe it would be different if I had based an academic career on one assertion over another. But overall it seems like both groups should still be able to pursue their own political agendas on their own terms, so why bother discussing this contradiction? And just on a personal (that is, cowardly) note, I might not agree that biological sex is a construct, and I certainly don’t think gender is innate, but I also think trans people should have easy access to medical intervention, so why not let the inversion stand? 

But herein lies the problem: politically, the two groups are not separate. One of the most frequently levied criticisms against certain feminist authors and movements is a lack of trans-inclusivity. Pink pussy hats were verboten within hours of their debut. Colleges have cancelled productions of The Vagina Monologues (not because it’s overwrought treacle, but because it talks about vaginas, which makes it de facto transphobic). These incidents may seem trifling by themselves, but they serve as avatars of a very real and important conflict: cis feminists are being demanded to center their feminism in an understanding of sex and gender that directly contradicts the base of their ideology. Because of this, actions and symbols that were recently taken as signs of love and solidarity are now being cast as hate speech. Cis women are being told, literally, that they have no right to call themselves women (trans women are “women,” cis women are “menstruaters”). Cis lesbians are called homophobic for not being attracted to people with penises. In short, a trans movement that purports to dedicate itself to ensuring that its purveyors be given the right to be recognized by own their self-understanding is doing so by denying that same right to others.

The only possible result here is a complete collapse anything resembling a unified feminist movement. Meaning, I guess, that it fits in perfectly with the atomized understandings of social justice that stem from internet-based discourse. I suppose I could end with a plea for decency and understanding, perhaps even outline a alignment that would allow for trans advocates and cis feminists to recognize tactical points of departure from one another without fear of committing literal assault or denying the existence of one another. But we’re past that point, I think. There’s no more space for humane liberalism. Everything’s a knock-down, drag-out these days. We don’t even pretend to want to help one another.

Addendum:

People are raising the fair point that a vast majority of trans people don’t subscribe to the sort of wrecker beliefs I outline here. That is absolutely true and part of what makes the shittiness of online gender discourse so tragic. I did not mean to suggest that these beliefs are at all common among trans people. I intended to criticize only the shitty woke media apparatus (everydayfeminism et al) that occludes any attempt at effectively theorizing gender because it prioritizes hyperbolic victim mongering over achieving political goals.

[transinformed-blog]

Gay/Lesbian Nonbinary Transpeople (My Take On It)

I know this topic isn’t the main focus of gender/sexuality related tumblr discourse at the moment but this is something I wanted to talk about for quite some time now and I finally found the time to do so.

Before I actually share my opinion, I think it’s important to get some definitions straight:

+ A nonbinary transperson is someone who experiences atypical dysphoria and therefore identifies neither as man nor as woman

I know discussions about gay cispeople and their attraction towards transpeople of their own gender are a pretty hot take at the moment and also I’m aware that not everyone believes nonbinary transpeople exist, but please let’s push that aside for a minute and just focuss on the problem that occurs with calling nonbinary transpeople gay or lesbian.

For nonbinary transpeople - as well as for binary transpeople and everyone else - it’s pretty important to know that their gender identity gets respected. “Gay” and “Lesbian” are binary terms. So I ask you: how can binary terms validate the identity of nonbinary people? My biggest issue is the term “nonbinary lesbian”. While I don’t want to dig too deep into this topic, I have to mention that I consider this term especially harmful, to lesbians as well as to nonbinary transgender people. I see “nonbinary lesbian” becoming an equivalent to “butch” and therefore pretending (gay) gender-nonconforming women shoudn’t even be considered women anymore. While “lesbian” strictly refers to women who are exclusively attracted to other women, “gay” - even if mostly used for homosexual men - can be used for both binary genders.

So could you say gay nonbinary transpeople - using it only for those individuals who are nonbinary and are attracted to other nonbinary transpeople exclusively - are a real thing? In my opinion: No. No matter how hard you try, erasing the fact that nonbinary transpeople are either assigned male or female at birth won’t work. There is no such thing as a generally nonbinary body. If you’re gay you might have a certain preference for this or that type of men, but you will be attracted to a male body, including male genitals. Same goes for lesbians with being attracted to female bodies and female genitals. Yes some people are able to deal with genitals of the opposite sex if dating a transperson of their own gender, but that’s not the norm. But again, I ask you: what does exclusive attraction to nonbinary transpeople look like, if there is nothing to break a nonbinary body down to in the first place. You can rage about the fact that it’s “not all about the body/genitalia” and you’re right with that. But it’s still a huge thing when it comes to our sexuality. We can’t just ignore our bodies and our preferences when it comes to other peoples genitalia just because someone decides it’s “transphobic” or whatever.

Let’s try to get back on track. The atypical dysporia of nonbinary transpeople leads to them wishing for a physical appereance that doesn’t fit the binary. They might want to have no sexual characteristics at all, they might want all of them at once, they might wish to have an unusual combination in between both extremes - depending on their certain kind of dysphoria. Because there are so many different possibilities, you can’t pin it down to being exclusively attracted to nonbinary transpeople.

But what if you’re nonbinary and exclusively attracted to men/women? Does it make you straight no matter what? No, I don’t think so either. Straight is also a binary term, and to use it for nonbinary individuals is about as wrong as calling them gay.

So, which terms did tumblr/people in general come up with describing the sexual orientations of nonbinary transpeople?

Trixic instead of Lesbian: While some people mention that trixic doesn’t has to be used to describe nonbinary transpeople who are exclusively attracted to women it’s generally used as a term for those who are nblw only. Toric instead of Gay: As well as trixic, some state it’s not an exclusive term, but it’s mostly used as such and describes those who are nblm only. Orbisian: Another term for trixic Quadrisian: Another term for toric Feminamoric: Another term for trixic, especially those who are romantically attracted to women exclusively Viramoric: Another term for toric, especially those who are attracted to men exclusively

I also found the terms “gai” and “strayt”, defined as “experiencing their attraction as gay/straight but in a nonbinary way”. Both terms to me don’t really make sense, since as mentioned above, nonbinary transpeople can’t really be gay in a first place. As for straight/strayt I could somewhat get myself to accept this term but it wouldn’t be really telling because a straight nonbinary person could either be:

nblw (trixic)

nblm (toric)

and maybe also nblm + nblw (I personally would prefer not to use “strayt” to describe this kind of people since they’re bisexual in my opinion but then again I doubt that I’d use “straight” in the first place, so i won’t dig into this one too deep either)

Therefore I’d ignore both terms all together because it’d lead to too much confusion.

But yes, this is my take on gay/lesbian nonbinary transpeople. I know it’s far from perfect, I surely made lots of grammar mistakes and I’m aware that this isn’t the best thing anyone came ever up with related to this topic, but I really wanted to share my opinion to find out more about yours and to learn from this because it’s saver for someone like me (a newbie to discourse + not a native speaker of the english language) to start with smaller topics before I jump right into the extremly heated up discourses. So thanks four reading and I look foward to hear everyones opinions on this topic!

[killerqueenbi]

So I saw your post about certain sexualities being “just bi” and I wanted to discuss that with you. The reason that these other terms exist is due to the fact that bi is meant to refer to being attracted to TWO genders (of course if someone identifies as bi and for them it means something different I give no hate or judgment). These two genders don’t have to be limited to male and female, but they often are in certain definitions. Terms like pan refer to attraction that exceeds only (part 1)

two genders or the reason for attraction is slightly different (again with pan that means that they are attracted to this person regardless of their gender). I just want to know why they all have to be placed in the same category when fundamentally they’re meant to be different? I honestly don’t mean any hate with this, your post just made me curious and I wanted you to explain it if you don’t mind.

Alright well there’s a lot to unpack here but I will try. The prefix bi does, as you said, technically refer to two. However, since the 1990s, it has been commonly accepted in the bi community as not being truly “restrictive” to the two binary genders. Bisexuality is a common term and relatively well understood by the general public (even if they don’t respect it as an identity). The true definition of bisexuality, in my and most bi people’s opinions, is that you are attracted to the same gender, and other genders. Those are two categories, so it fits within “bi” as a prefix (even though language is almost never literal and latin prefixes mean fuck all in english half the time because english as a language is bullshit). You are correct in saying that bi people are not only attracted to “males” and “females,” but you are incorrect in saying that bisexuality can be any two genders. Primarily because bisexuality is not about attraction to JUST two genders but rather as stated before attraction to the same gender and other genders, but beyond that you are spreading a very dangerous mentality that is rampant in the MOGAI subculture on this site - that one can be bisexual without experiencing same-gender attraction.

As a non-binary person, I have a little fun fact: Literally everyone is attracted to non-binary people. They may not be attracted to ALL non-binary people, much the same way that people are not attracted to everyone in their gender(s) of choice. Non-binary, as a group and identity, is NOT a monolith. You cannot be attracted to non-binary people as an individual group because it is impossible to tell who is non-binary just by looking at them. Claiming that you can be attracted to non-binary people when we have no distinguishing characteristics comes across as extremely fetishizing. Even “monosexual” people (in quotes because I dislike that word) are attracted to non-binary people. Straight men are attracted to me because I am feminine presenting. Even if someone is truly androgynous, there are likely “monosexual” people who would be/are attracted to them. This is the problem with identities like pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual; it treats non-binary and sometimes even binary trans people as a separate group that you must explicitly include in the word for the sexuality. And, as I’m sure you are aware, non-binary is an umbrella term; there are tons of words underneath non-binary and non-binary is not a third gender. As a result, bisexuality as the “attraction to two genders” is a pointless way to view it because if you claim to be attracted to women and “non-binary people” that already encompasses far more than two genders and I have never met a bi person who has two SPECIFIC genders to which they are attracted. Bisexuality’s lived, tangible reality is attraction to people “regardless” of gender the same way pan and omni define themselves and encompasses poly as well as you are attracted to multiple genders. By your definition, bisexuality is either a pointless, non-existent identity, or the identity of people who explicitly exclude trans people from their attraction because they are are attracted to “only” men and women. This is a biphobic conception. With my post I ask people to think critically about why they view bisexuality as so limited when the reality of bi people is quite literally no different from pansexual and omnisexual and all same & other gender-attracted people. By your definition of bisexuality you also invalidate the identities lesbians and gay men who are attracted to/identify as/are in relationships with non-binary people.

TL;DR pan/poly/omnisexuality is redundant because bisexuality is not “attraction to two genders” but “attraction to the same and other genders.” Non-binary people are not a separate group that you can be “attracted” to and therefore are included in bisexuality and all other sexualities for that matter. And you can’t be bi without experience same-gender attraction.

[mentalcurls]

3.5 Ammucchiate

Here’s a masterpost of my thoughts on and reactions to 3.5 Ammucchiate, translated from this post, that I mostly compiled from my tweets from that day, because I had A LOT to say. They’re not properly in chronological order and I’ve added a couple of observations I made in hindsight at the end of the season.

While the girlsquad is singing “Bello e impossibile”, Emma sings along and she touches Marti’s shoulder to catch his attention and communicate to him something like “Hey, hear me out, I’m singing about you” but he’s impassive, then lowers the sunglasses to his eyes and doesn’t smile until his eyes are hidden by the lenses

“Bello e impossibile”, by the way, stops right when Emma says “Io adoro i gay”/”I love gay people”, so right at the beginning of Niccolò’s roast

So let’s talk about Niccolò roasting Emma: first thing he does is retract his arms from around Marti’s and Emma’s shoulders (breaking the united front of the three “disertori del terrazzo” he himself had established earlier), then he makes the most unimpressed face ever, then he quotes an extreme example that forces a polarization (“Tutti gli arabi sono terroristi”/”All Arabs are terrorists”; this is a bit of a fallacy, but it’s also a pretty smart move because it makes Emma sound homophobic by association and forces Marti to side with Nico in the event he needs to choose between the two of them), while he could have chosen as an example of generalising something like “All women are bad at driving”, which would have been closer to Emma’s personal experience, but also closer to a direct attack on her (therefore counterproductive if Martino had to pick sides)

Kudos to Niccolò for studying Greek and Latin rhetoric very well, and philosophy too, YAY FOR LICEO CLASSICO

Martino’s dumbstruck expression when he breaks away from kissing Emma, aka when he hears that Niccolò has gone to them and is talking to them. Marti, by the way, doesn’t smile at all during the rest of the conversation with Niccolò (whereas when he was alone with Emma he smiled most of the time, but with his eyes hidden by the sunglasses, which makes me think they were fake smiles)

(I do believe Marti’s positive reactions during the conversation about Apparat were genuine)

Niccolò Fares sitting on the couch between two people who were making out until a second before without an hint of shame, which means he not only positions himself near Marti and manages to put his arm around Martino’s shoulders, but he also physically separates his boy from his love rival Emma. An inspiration.

DID THEY REALLY HAVE TO USE ELIO of all possible names, in the year of CMBYN (I know the reference here is to Elio Germano, not Pearlman, but my brain only recognizes some types of references)

LATENT HOMOSEXUALITY  did he really say that oh God help me

Can we talk about the way Niccolò says “homosexuality” in a normal way, the emphasizes “latent” stressing every syllable?

My heart hurts both because of Nico’s little speech about generalising and because of the way Marti and Emma just leave him alone on the couch

Niccolò looking at his hands, his smile disappearing and the corners of his mouth turning down

During Self Control, Martino doesn’t consider Covitti at all, she tries to get his attention dancing closer, putting her arms around his neck, turning his face to kiss him but 2 seconds later he breaks the kiss and even when she goes for his neck he completely ignores her (p.s.: and we know now that Marti actually likes “neck action” a lot so this is very significant)

This lasts until Niccolò starts watching him, of course, then Marti has to try and make him jealous(?)/show off(?)/follow some kind of weird mating ritual (?)

Martino doesn’t stop watching Niccolò even when he stops watching Marti

10 minutes standing ovation for Rocco Fasano’s eyes 🔥🔥🔥

So that was Martino in the Self Control scene, now let’s talk about Eva. Her expressions! At first she smiles, then she sees Marti with Emma and she stops smiling, she studies them, she notices Marti is distracted, then when they start making out she makes a face and turns away (p.s.: she’s definitely disappointed, because at this point the things she knows are 1) that Marti told her he likes her before the summer 2) he allegedly made her and Gio broke up because of that 3) he has gay porn on his phone 4) he hasn’t approached her and he turned her down just a couple of weeks before with an excuse, so up until now her working theory is that he’s gay, has a thing for Gio, lied to her cause he’s in the closet/in denial; except now? he’s kissing Emma? a girl? who’s not her? She feels confused and betrayed, a feeling that stays with her at least until 7.1 Era per lui)

Then there’s Federica, poor thing, heartbroken and for the completely wrong reason

Eva directing everybody to hide any and all evidence of the party is very me tbh

(except that if it was me and I sent one person out with the trash and he DOESN?T COME BACK AT ALL, I’d kill him? I mean, I appreciate the moment as a fan, but not as my group of friends’ designated problem-solver)

Martino and Emma freezing and not doing anything even after Eva yells “Regà che cazzo mi guardate, dai, dai!” and freaks out

Maddalena and Emma are shown while they do the same thing aka taking the red cloth off the lamps (and this details gives me feels that are entirely unreasonable given that I was about to link this detail to Schopenhauer’s Veil of Maya) (p.s.: I mean, there’s definitely a lot of symbolic meaning I couldn’t quite articulate at the time of the clip, because unveiling = revealing and this is the clip in which the boys reveal their mutual attraction beyond any doubt, plus it’s Emma and Maddi “eliminating” the red light which is so important for Marti and Nico’s relationship, it’s their thing for their most intimate moments)

“Elio” and “Colino” keep silent for 11 second after throwing the trash in the bins, 11 second of fidgeting, 11 second of I’m-looking-I’m-not-looking, 11 seconds of awkwardness, 11 secondi of disaster gay Marti not knowing whether to say something or not

BAM! Niccolò smiles, steals a joke from Emma and Martino starts smiling again for the first time since Nico arrived to the party, since he interrupted Emma to kiss her (and no glasses this time!)

COLINO

God, how sad is this pet name? The allergy pseudo-explanation is even worse, sorry Maddalena, you do you, but Colino is afwul

Martino: ”How long have you been together?” Niccolò: "Since we were 16, but we’ve known each other since middle school. To be honest, we’re more like siblings than anything else. We haven’t fucked in, like, two months.” Let’s analyze this answer: Niccolò gives the information Marti requested, adds a relevant qualifier, then an unnecessary qualifier and another even more unnecessary information (that’s unnecessary when compared with the literal content of the conversation, discounting the context, [which is Niccolò trying to justify his being with Maddalena while undressing Martino with his eyes at every chance to Marti himself])

Marti’s confusion when Nico says “But I can’t break up with her” breaks my hearts, just like the fact that despite everything he genuinely feels bad for Maddalena’s “hypertrichosis”

Seriously, what’s with Niccolò and feet? They’re part of the human body, let them live, or is always mentioning them with a negative connotation some kind of reverse psychology thing to tell the world you’ve got a fetish?

8:53 is the precise time at which Nico cracks and you can see just a hint of a smile at the corner of his mouth AND MARTI SEES IT RIGHT AWAY I mean, with all the Nico-watching he does of course he’s carefully catalogued his every tiny change of expression and of course he can’t possibly not notice

So how much time will Martino lose trying to decide whether Niccolò was only joking about the hobbit feet thing, about the whole hypertrichosis thing or about the fact that he can’t break up with Maddalena, too?

That hint of hope and affection you can read in Nico’s eyes while he’s watching Marti right before he starts to move his pinky (thank you Rocco, ily)

My son Niccolò? who can’t stop smiling? when he’s alone with Marti? and who acts so brave??? going for his hand first????

Martino, you’re such a dumbass though, that’s a classic movie move and you look down like an idiot, look at the stars you can’t see instead, look at the street lamp!

Martino’s absolute lack of chill when he looks down towards their hands as sson as Nico touches him kind of makes me homicidal (because it breaks the convention a classic rom com scene), but it makes his answering, reciprocal move even more significant because it’s intentional (p.s.: over time, I actually got a different perspective on this? And I actually completely love it now, cause it makes sense for Marti, it makes sense for a teenager like him and it gives us a feel of disbelief over the whole situation he has to be feeling too cause that shit happens in movies alright, but not in RL, not to people like him, except it’s happening; on top of that, I love LudoBesse for breaking another stereotypical romantic trope and making our boys fucking FEARLESS - I mean, if something like that happened to me I’d be shitting myself and I would ignore it as hard as possible out of fear that if I pointed it out it would scare the other person away, but that’s me)

And then, a herd of mammoths DARES TO INTERRUPT MY CHILDREN you deserve the worst things, folks

Finally, I would just like to state for the record that I’m kind of disappointed Silvia’s 80s party only had 80s music, Eva and Silvia dressed up kind of eighties and a girl in a Madonna-ish outfit, stop

It’s a real shame, I have see no huge bows, no fluo tutus, no legwarmers, no oversized blazers with the big shoulders, no Memphis group style prints on sweatpants, no Puma-Fila-Kappa-Champions N O T H I N G WHERE’S FIORUCCI? 

[jimmythejiver]

Okay, so maybe I'm not finding the right fiction, professional, or fanfiction, but I'm noticing this strange phenomena and it only sort of brushes on my generalization that women would rather date robots, men would rather date aliens theory1 that is kind of controversial, so I won't rehash it all here.

This time I'm setting my sites on the monster romance genre and it's deep narrative divide when it comes to gendered human protagonists. I don't have any data on gendered alien/monster protagonists because such mc's are rarely written about since writer's are human and biased towards writing their perspective.

My observation: That when it comes to human protagonists of the dating monster/alien/creature/nonhuman genre, the man protagonist gay, or straight dating whatever gender his creature boyfriend is, will accept them for who they are and work around their differences and outlooks, but when it's a woman protagonist, she cannot because the story won't explore it.

In Beauty In The Beast it's a good thing The Beast was human all along and she had to look past the furry part to fall in love and transform him back. In Shape Of water, she falls in love with a freaky fish guy2 and it's a good thing she turns out to be some kind of fish girl all along. In fact the one piece of fiction that comes to mind to subvert this was Swamp Thing in the 80's, but oh no DC Comics had to retcon it back to Swamp Thing was Alec Holland the human transformed again instead of those being false, absorbed memories.

It's also something to be said, but a different topic for another day that good thing Clark Kent looks human and was raised human for Lois Lane, but Dick Grayson has no trouble dating Starfire who looks less human and was raised in a nonhuman culture. I love Clark and Lois, but... come on. Now that I'm drawing patterns how am I to write my Kal-El was raised on Krypton and goes to Earth later where him and Lois fall in love differently AU if this is the constraint human women are supposed to fall into in romantic fiction?

Compare and contrast how Captain Kirk falls over himself around alien babes, but Uhura and Nurse Chapel can't help liking half-alien Spock's cool exterior, the usual personality quirks a humanized robot is written with plus the conflict of his human side making him both an example of women will date robots theory and women will only date aliens the more human they seem, but are baffled and attracted by their stoicism too? Sorry I always go back to that one.

Now keep in mind all these The Beast, Swamp Thing narratives were supposed to show how unshallow women are compared to their fetishist men counterparts who just want to bang a hot cat girl, or green alien girl, or whatever by seeing the human within instead of the unstated kink. It just sucks that the conflict and philosophy of what is sentience and intelligence vs. what is human is brushed aside to make an easy don't worry they're like the same specie anyway transformation resolves.

I acknowledge that my examples are lacking and there are probably more exceptions to the rule. I'm not counting exploitation pornography, or human woman and monster/alien friendship stories about communication and bonding. I'm strictly talking about most romantic  narratives inability to write women as loving nonhumans working through differences, the way both think differently and adjust, the code-switching, the philosophy, etc.

Now here's my theory3 beyond the not shallow vs. fetishism angle. Writer's seem to be under the impression that a woman will date anyone as long as they are human-like and treat each other like humans.

Secondly writer's seem to think that because men can't even understand the women (and even men) that they date and are always arguing and working around communication problems they are more conditioned, or equipped with dating what is lacking in reliability amongst humans so of course they're more equipped with falling in love with what is not human and therefore cannot fathom humanity and it's rituals, but hey that's just a theory, a writer's theory.4

1 Original Post

2 Yugioh Abridge Reference, not to besmirch the character.

3 If anyone wants clarification I'm just an autistic trans man overanalyzing how this messed up alien society works when maybe one person bothers to try to understand me at all.

4 Another youtube show reference