#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

[squidfreak]

"Notice how we always see things about lesboys but never gaygirls? men are always trying to invade lesbian spaces..."

One, we don't tell you guys about turigirls/gaygirls because you'll also flip your shit over them just like you do with lesboys. Two, what the hell are you talking about??? And three, you're harassing lesbians and invading their spaces?!?!?!?!??! Even then, no one cares what turigirls/gaygirls are because people are too focused on trying to control lesbians.... 🫠

[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?????????

[queer0-0]

People on Tiktok are so fucking stupid when it comes to queer people omg.

"hey, no, lesboy is actually mostly used by genderqueer and/or non-conforming lesbians, not cishet men."

"NOO!!!!1!1!!11! it means LESBIAN MAN which is IMPOSSIBLE and HORRIBLE. This term is NEVER EVER EVER used by non-binary, trans, and butch lesbians because I SAID SO 😡😡😡😡😡"

Like. Dude. Please

And even if it was a man who just wanted to use the label. Just liek. Don't date him if you don't wanna date him. Most conservatives don't even know what lesboys are.

Your infighting is literally only hurting the community please for the love of whatever you believe in 😭

[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

[l0gic1]

The Inclusivity Facade

Like the name suggests, ‘inclusionists’ often perceive themselves as the inclusive side. They see themselves as martyrs—morally righteous individuals guided by a one-track goal: to promote “inclusivity” and “compassion” in all areas of life, particularly in LGBTQ+ discourse. Admirable, right?

However, despite what it might seem like on the surface, the core principles of inclusionist rhetoric are not based on actualized inclusion. Instead, they are based around dogma, control, blind acceptance, exclusion (surprise!), and sometimes even abuse. Inclusionists typically spread their value of “inclusivity” by blithely accepting any identities, no matter how contradictory, illogical, or unscientific they may seem. They will claim they believe in inclusivity, yet they are notably exclusionary towards those of different beliefs. They will claim they believe in compassion and understanding, yet they will send death threats or threats of violence to transmedicalists, exclusionists, and others that don't conform to their ideology, tell them to harm or kill themselves, verbally abuse them (cyberbullying), enable their eating disorders, claim false and derogatory things about them, dox them, engage in online harassment campaigns, attempt to silence dissenting opinions through mass-reporting, etc.

As such, the vast majority of inclusionists (it is unfortunately not a small but vocal minority, as one might hope) are as averse to basic human decency as a vampire is to sunlight. The truth is that inclusionists, for the most part, are not really trying to spread “inclusion”. Instead, they use the deceptive veil of “inclusion” as a way to make them seem better than they really are; if you present yourself as someone who stands for such an agreeable ideology (inclusion), people are more likely to perceive you as a virtuous person who stands for virtuous things.

That said, their actions often reveal their true intentions. In reality, inclusionists are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as intolerant, bigoted, or even evil. They have no interest in understanding different perspectives or engaging in meaningful dialogue. Instead, they resort to unethical, damaging, and even borderline abusive behavior patterns that make a genuinely positive shift in society and online discourse virtually impossible. It becomes readily apparent that their supposed commitment to inclusion is nothing more than a facade to boost their own egos and maintain a false sense of moral superiority.

What inclusionists fail to realize is that inclusion is about creating a space where people feel respected and valued, regardless of their opinions and intrinsic qualities. This doesn't mean one should welcome people who are bigoted or hold harmful views, but rather that creating an environment where differing perspectives can be respectfully challenged and debated is essential to intellectual growth and fostering a culture of critical thinking. Inclusionists should understand that true inclusion involves embracing diversity and allowing for open dialogue, even with those who hold opposing views. It is through respectful engagement and the exchange of ideas that we can foster empathy and understanding and ultimately work towards positive societal change. By excluding individuals solely based on their opinions, we risk perpetuating echo chambers and hindering progress in our collective pursuit of knowledge and enlightenment.

[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)

[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]