#inclusionist discourse

[michaelmilkers]

i'm regularly astounded by the cognitive dissonance some of yall have to accept that gender is a social construct with infinite possibilities with the capacity to be deeply personal and individual but still think there's a list of like 4 acceptable sexual orientations and if you go outside of that list or mix entries on that list or relate to them in a non-traditional way not only are you Breaking The Rules you're personally directly harming people who follow them

[gray-ace-space]

recently encountered a post where someone said "gender is fluid but sexuality isn't". (they were talking about bi lesbians.)

my first thought was: does that person, like. hear what they're saying? how can you explicitly hold two beliefs that are so logically inconsistent and not see it? how can you simultaneously think gender is this fluid and complex thing, but sexuality, much of which is defined around gender, is simple and stationary and its boundaries need policing?

but like, fuck, why even argue against it, right? there is no internal logic because there is no logical thought behind it. these are not genuine beliefs. this person is repeating what is currently acceptable in their (small) specific social circle. this is the same person who, a few years back, would be excluding nonbinary lesbians, but nonbinary lesbians are cool and normal on queer tumblr now, so they'll exclude bi lesbians instead, and not even pause to reflect on the difference.

oh, and if you read this and thought "these people don't even actually accept nb lesbians either", ding ding ding! because it's not a real, deep belief, that acceptance is extremely shallow and conditional. so as soon as someone is an nb lesbian in a way these people find odd (like being both a man and a lesbian) they will exclude them too and find a way to justify it.

why do we have to endlessly go through this cycle with queer identities. can we not? can we just not. i'm tired.

[certified-moth]

the most common trait i see in aro/ace exclusionists is the fact that they treat aspec identities as neutral. like any other part of someones identity immediately wins out. if an aro person is sexually attracted to men, that attraction is the determining factor in if they are queer. theres just a total refusal to imagine that aromantic and asexual experiences are a major determining factor in the way we experience life

i think it just goes to show how little some people are willing to engage with a variety of aro and ace people and understand how they experience the world. lack of attraction is not neutral, our entire world is shaped around romantic and sexual attraction and relationships. i think a lot of them would genuinely be surprised at how similar gay and aspec experiences can be if they were willing to actually listen to us

[historyinclusionist]

History Inclusionist

An "Inclusionist" who believes that identities which are 1) shown to be supported in the community's history 2) are harmless personal identities that don't pose harm to others are valid and should be included in their communities.

Overall:

"History Inclusionism" refers to being inclusive of personal identities based on the identity being:

A self affirmed personal identity (locatable only within a person's interaction with and relations to the world around you)

Historically shown to be included in an identity subculture (Such as in a notable number of personal accounts, poems, zines, books, or other media from a subculture)

Shown to be non harmful to other identities or persons (Such as in more than one professional study)

Examples: - Different studies over human history have concluded that being raised by gay parents doesn't cause inherent harm to children. Therefore, gay relationships are provably shown to be non harmful. They are included here. - Different self-reports, comics, zines, and other writings from the past 60 years mention male lesbians, bi lesbians, and lesbians in relationships with men. Therefore, it is historically shown to be included in lesbian culture, and is included here. - Studies, reports, and other examinations by professionals over the course of human history have come to the conclusion that minors in relationships with adults cannot properly consent and are harmed by those "relationships." Therefore, personal identities that try to justify these "relationships" are not included here.

"Personal Identity"?

"Personal Identity" is a purposefully broad term meant to apply to most self-affirmed forms of identification (plurality status, orientation, gender, etc).

Being a History Inclusionist means that you are in complete support of the following personal identities:

Plurality which does not attribute its origins to trauma

Lesbians who are also male / Gay men who are also female

Lesbians who are also mspec (bi, pan, poly, etc) / Gay men who are also mspec

Transgender / nonbinary people who don't experience dysphoria or only feel euphoria

Nonbinary genders, including xenogenders / nonbinary genders that are "atypical" (based on fictional characters, highly specific, based on animals, etc)

"Atypical" relationship formats such as polyamorous relationships, relationship anarchy, kink-focused relationships, etc (Or generally any other form of relationship between two or more consenting people that would not fall under anything on the list below this)

Gender presentations which conflict with and/or defy the expected norm (Women who use he/him pronouns, men who present feminine, etc)

Being a History Inclusionist means that you absolutely do not tolerate or support the following:

Acting on or encouraging attraction to children as an adult (Ped*philia)

Acting on, encouraging attraction to, or associating positive feelings with the attraction to one's family members (Inc*st)

Acting on or encouraging attraction to, or associating positive feelings with the attraction to animals (Z*ophilia)

TransID/TransX communities, the idea that someone can transition into or identify as an age, disorder, or condition they physically are not or do not have (transrace/diarace/trace, transabled/transdisorder/'transplural'/transautistic, and so on)

Arguing with other members of the LGBT community over who is allowed to use derogatory words (Q-eer, f-ggot, d-ke, and so on)

Tagging: @mogai-sunflowers @neopronouns @radiomogai

If you're interested in reading more about why I consider XYZ a good faith thing and why I don't consider XYZ the same, I made a Carrd! 📖��️‍🌈

[intersexfairy]

daily reminder i guess that "queer exclusionism" and "online discourse" isn't just internet bullshit. it has harmful, sometimes dangerous, impacts on real people. the people you see spouting even the most vapid queerphobia are real people who go around in their lives and their beliefs hurt others. it even hurts themselves. the internet may not be a physical place, but it still a place. the people on here are still real. it matters.

if all it is to you is nothing, you're either in denial or one of the lucky ones. also queerphobia isn't less important just because it comes from other queer people or takes place online.

[thee-radio-host-is-a-kookaburra]

[jennygeistvids]

Sooo, potentially risking a nuclear bomb by posting this here, but fuck it. I did a video about 2016-2020 era "Ace Discourse," how awful and toxic it got, and how modern day LGBTQ debates are often just repeats of the same tired arguments. Let's all learn about it so we can know never to do it again. 😬

[caiiaxteiie]

me: i'm aromantic.

y'all: oh, you're aroace? like, asexual?? you never fuck??? you're aro i guess, and asexual???? acespec, even????? aroace?????? because it's impossible to be aromantic and not asexual??????? you're aroace???????? basically asexual?????????

[luckytheburger]

"xyz cant say fag" "xyz cant say dyke" okay well I think that fags and dykes can kissing me with tongue. both of them. at once.

[owl-discourse]

I continously forget exclusionists exists until I go online and see an occasional post of theirs pop up in LGBTQ+ tags. In all my years of frequenting queer orgs and events, I've never met one at any of them.

[chaos-in-one]

Today on "wow exclusionists are fucking wild" I legit just saw someone crying over people IDing as lesboys(on tik tok, surprise surprise). Like visibly had tears in their eyes, voice was shaky and cracking, the whole mile. All while saying "why can't you just accept that you're straight"

Like dude maybe you need to go offline enough if someone's orientation and gender labeling gets you worked up enough to CRY over it idfk

[everyponie]

I think its very strange and weird that people will put so much anger and effort into hating bisexual lesbians and lesboys but will be completely silent on the genocide in Palestine. Why are people attacking innocent queer people when they could be putting this effort and anger into advocating for change? Redirect your anger to the right places. There are much bigger issues in the world right now. Innocent people are being slaughtered. Stop focusing on useless queer discourse and actually do something useful.

[foxfairy06]

[certified-moth]

Do you think people think "woman" is a neutral identify if they only think her lesbianism makes her queer and not her womannesss?

Like, uh, yeah, dumb ass, queer identities are only based in queerness. If you are not attracted to the same gender or trans, your identities are not queer. They do not impact your role in the LGBT community. A straight man who is cis but does not feel sexual desire is not queer. A cis straight kinky man isn't queer either. There's no identity identity you can give a cisgender, straight person or cisgender aroace person that would make them LGBT.

i think youre misinterpreting what i said. i dont think smth that doesnt contribute to someones queerness is neutral. i wasnt implying any part of anyones identity is neutral, i was noting that the treatment of aro and ace identities as neutral is a common belief in exclusionists. by that i mean that they are ignored as a factor impacting the lives of an individual. they are treated as having no meaningful impact on the persons sexuality, and that the only impact comes from the attraction present.

youre trying to define an example of queerness that i just dont agree with. the idea that same sex attraction is necessary is just kinda an arbitrary rule you believe in. I would personally say that the main connecting factor of the LGBT community is the way our identities have shaped the way we experience the world in comparison to cishet people.

i do actually think a heteroromantic asexual cis guy is LGBT if thats how he chooses to define his identity. Like i briefly mentioned in my post, our world is shaped around relationships. there are legal benefits to relationships. they are treated as a given expectation. to not experience sexual attraction greatly changes the way you experience relationships, as well as the way society treats you.

your entire argument just proves the point of my post. you view aromanticity and asexuality as inherently neutral, providing no experiences that could connect to queer experiences. You treat them as if they are just basically straight. but all the aro and/or ace people i have personally interacted with have far more in common experience-wise with queer experiences than they do with straight ones

(also i never brought up kink, i dont believe kink is inherently queer. im not sure but it kinda feels like you are conflating a sexual orientation and a sexual preference)

[paranormeow7]

thinking about people being so mean to my friends abt their more unusual queer identities and its like? why do u feel the need to get so angry abt someone happy in their identity simply bc u don’t understand it? My 55 year old cishet dad had a coworker that used it/it’s pronouns and even though he didn’t get it, and even when that coworker gave him grief, he still tried to respect its identity and pronouns!!! a man who only uses the internet to order shit for work and read comic strips was more caring and tolerant than some of y’all young queers who call urselves “progressive!!” What happened to “live and let live” or “cringe culture is dead” and why is it a controversial opinion to say that you shouldn’t attack people for being comfortable in their own skin in a way you don’t understand? you will never get anything done by targeting your own community, and we can only stop our oppressors if we put aside our differences and band together. To anyone with an unconventional or controversial queer identity, I love you and and respect you!! Keep on keeping on 💝

Any deranged hate I get for this post will be ridiculed by me and my friends :]

[gray-ace-space]

can i just say, i truly detest tumblr posts in the format of "yes you're X but are you normal about Y".

i understand the point, to call out hypocrisy and internal issues in a community, but most of the time X and Y have literally nothing to do with each other and, ironically, reveal the poster's biases.

then again i just generally really dislike when people act like groups with different queer identities are in opposition to each other, or one has it hierarchically better than the other. go outside guys. i promise you your grievances are completely incomprehensible to anyone outside your hyperspecific tumblr circle.

if you want to make a point about double standards or intersectionality - and i want to emphasize, those are important points that need to be made - there are better ways to do it than targeting an X group that is also very marginalized as if they're the main perpetrators of bigotry against Y group (in an extremely obnoxious and passive aggressive way).

it's like you're trying to stoke infighting. can we please have some solidarity. goddamn.