#it's a Bad Time to be Queer AND in favor of community care

[spitefullyspirited]

The knowledge that my grandmother will go in to work sick (she serves food at a high school) and cave to peer pressure from her other shitty boomer coworkers and remove her mask (If she ever put one on) and infect the whole fucking high school right before summer vacation is something that has lost me sleep this night.

[batboyblog]

https://www.tumblr.com/batboyblog/767861339473510400/see-i-kind-of-get-the-idea-of-wanting-her-to-at

And frankly, if regular people had done THEIR job of voting in a Harris presidency (especially the more "informed" non-voters or anti-voters who prioritized their own ego), then McBride wouldn't have to make these kinds of difficult choices (at least to the same degree, since I don't doubt transphobes would still do their bullshit) in the first place.

yes.

Nancy Mace who's leading this charge just cares about being on TV, literally thats it. Back in 2021 she was selling herself as pro-LGBT, even saying she was in favor of "transgender equality" now she's screaming about trans women being really men. Why? well in 2021 it looked like there was space for Republicans to move on from Queer bashing and she wanted to get interviewed and be on TV for being part of a new breed of Republican. After this election many people agree transphobia was a useful wedge issue for Trump so she's gonna be the most transphobic of them all, again just to get on TV. So yes, if Kamala Harris had won Nancy Mace wouldn't be doing this because this is only motivated by her wanting to be on TV.

In a bigger sense, if Democrats had won the House this wouldn't be happening, Republicans might rage and stamp their feet about it, but a Democratic Speaker would tell them to kick rocks.

So yeah past McBride herself, the 2024 election was a test, "is transphobia a workable electoral issue" and the answer was "yes, yes it is" so transphobia is gonna be worse, it told Republicans that being transphobic and running on bullying trans people works so they're gonna do more of it, and for Democrats it showed there were few if any electoral rewards for sticking up for trans people. I remember when Harris very first became the candidate there were a series of huge organizing calls, so big they broke Zoom a few times, Women for Harris, black women, black men, white dudes for Harris, etc and I kept thinking "geez there really should be a trans people for Harris" there was a generalized LGBT one which had big names but if there ever was a trans one it was not well marketed. Point being the election did not see a big trans mobilization, which is very bad, you're seeing a few Democrats break ranks and ask "if we get hammered on this issue, and lose elections, and don't see any mobilization or support, should we moderate?" If Harris had won the narrative would be "voters don't care about trans issues, its a loser to run on transphobia" but she didn't so we're in this darker timeline

And being in this darker timeline a good starting point to clawing your way back is to have the ONE! trans member of Congress, the ONLY national trans figure's back at all times. Because beaming the message that even a trans Congresswoman doesn't have the support of the trans community will tell every jumpy Democrat that they're right to be thinking about ditching trans rights.

[sirenium]

This started off as a multigender rant but includes other things, because I'm so pissed off at the queer community for these things that I need to fit it all in one post. Sit back and prepare for this, it's a long read (also feel free to scroll past) being multigender sucks because I feel too paradoxical to be taken seriously. It doesn't help that I'm also agender :/ Like yeah, identity is your own and you shouldn't shave off parts of it to appease others, but damn does the 'passive' hostility and invalidation towards multigender people such as myself make me feel pushed towards changing myself sometimes. You can scream into the void all you want about being normal about multigender people and how they label their experiences, but some people just... never will be. That's what it feels like, from the fucking queer community as well as cishet society. It sucks. I can never be comfortable to explore my womanhood because then my manhood and agenderhood will never be taken seriously. Hell, the fact that I simultaneously experience gender AND being genderless is enough for people to just shit on me and exile me from queer spaces. The fact that I prefer ze/hir and it/its and nounself pronouns is enough for people to call me one of the bad ones. AND, the fact that I am more comfortable being perceived as a man suddenly makes me a 'danger to women'. There are so many issues with how multigender people, neurodivergent queers (literally any kind of neurodivergent, not just the neopronoun xenogender autistic person), queer POC, the list goes on are treated; if you aren't a white woman god help you, god forbid you're a man in any way either. And don't even get me started about how aroace people are fucking treated. I could go on for another few paragraphs about how I, as someone who is aroace spec and a plethora of other things, don't feel safe sometimes. I could go on and on and on. And fuck it, I will (under the cut because this post is already comically long):

'Aroace is a spectrum' this, 'all aroaces are valid' that, until you're romance/sex oscillating or even favorable, until you're polyamorous, until you're also a lesbian or a gay person or m-spec. Even in the fucking aroace community you're held by some bar of being aroace enough, and if you diverge even slightly god forbid. Allo fictives of aroace characters, hell even those who are aroace in a different way, have to listen to the incessant whining of the 'stop making sexual/romantic fiction of this character! they're repulsed in canon!' crowd. It's fucking obnoxious. Aroace people are already not taken seriously, aroallos and alloaces are already not taken seriously, and then you have the clown parade of people forcing their own idea of what they want you to be down your throat. The queer community and its many facets feel so fucking unsafe at times, and that sucks because we're all we've got. Some people don't have supportive family or connections outside of online queer spaces, and this is what they get. It's so incredibly shitty. I don't feel aroace enough because of my experiences, despite also having very stereotypical aroace experiences. I feel forced to constantly be sex/romance averse at times because again, god forbid you're ever favorable. I have two partners, okay? I have partners who I don't necessarily 'love' but care about a lot, and then I have to come across things that erase the fact that I am quite often averse to sex and romance because of this fact! People like me are constantly erased, and when they're represented in fiction people throw a hissy fit. "Oh you're forcing an aroace character into allonormativity!" Hey asshole: maybe, just maybe, aroace people can date just as much as they aren't required to. Fucking. Jesus. Some community this is, for there to be so much exclusion and hatred and segregation.

[androgynousblackbox]

Alright, I am watching the reaction stream of another person to see the video of Jamesy and I have thoughts! -Jamesy is REALLY counting on buttering up to Jessie Gender specifically. He named her so many times trying to "apologize" for weaponizing his audience against her when she told him to not erase her work in Nebula just because his whiny entitled ass couldn't accept that he wasn't invited to the platform. Not a single word about actually going to her and talk privately though, just a bunch of "ooh, Jessie Gender is the kindest, best human being ever and I am so sorry to her", like, bitch, WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT HER? Jessie wasn't the worst victim of your actions! Your bullshit with her happened long BEFORE anything of this happened, so why the fuck are you even bringing her up?? My only guess is that Jamesy wants Jessie to speak on his favor and "forgive him", hoping that will bring him new good will from the queer community in youtube. I am fucking crossing my fingers and touching wood that Jessie does not fall for this manipulative bullshit. This guy is literally clout chasing because, again, when it came to the plagiarism, Jessie had NOTHING to do here. Jessie, if you want an easy win, don't say anything about this. Don't even aknowledge it. Pretend like a mosquito just farted in another building. You had nothing to do with this and I am sorry this piece of shit is trying to drag you into it to take advantage of your good nature. -"I only cared about the production side of making videos, that is why I bring Nick in as the main writer." This motherfucker really went and did it. He is literally blaming Nick squarely now, because now he is just not a co-writer. No, now he is the MAIN WRITER. Jamesy here was just trying to making his little films and buy expensive ass equipment while telling everyone he was starving on the streets, he only cared about the production. NICK, THOUGH, HE WAS ALL ABOUT THE WRITING. He was the one who put the words and little Jamesy baby boy here only "produced, directed and edited" (omg, shut the fuck off, man, your editing skills are mid at best) everything. -Way too many sob stories. I don't care, man. I don't fucking care that you got fired or whatever conditions you had. Do you have any fucking clue how many people do really struggle to reach the end of the month and they still never even think of stealing someone else's work? Everyone is struggling and yet, you were the one who made a career for fucking years out of stealing the works of everyone else in this community AND THEN, when call out, tried to paint them as the bad guys.

-A lot, and I do mean, a lot of time to "apologize" to Jessie Gender, but you know who he didn't apologize to? Literally none of the authors he stole from. Not the fan whose edit of Korra he used without credit. Not Alexander Avila. Not that person who was harassed to hell and back by Jamesy and his audience when they showed how he plagiarized on his disney video. Jessie deserved to be name dropped at least thirty times, but those people?? They are fucking nobodies. They don't matter. Why name them at all? It's not like their WORK WAS STOLEN BY YOU OR ANYTHING! And that is another thing! Even if Jamesy is really out there blaming Nick for all the words that they took without credit, then what the fuck is up with all the footage, edits and audiovisual works that weren't for you to take? You said your passion is production. That is part of the production, Jamesy. Is this you admitting you fully just fucking stole them and hoped nobody would notice because you are a lazy piece of garbage?

-"Having to do multiple edits because youtube copyright issues was so hard for me, guys, you don't understand uwu. It was so hard on me to make it less obvious I had plagiarized people!" THAT IS ENTIRELY YOUR OWN FAULT, BRO.

-So, hey, funny thing. I was looking to see if other people were reacting or had reuploaded the video so I could put it here. They haven't yet, there is only two reactions, but while I was doing that I found a video of ANOTHER person talking about Jamesy ripping them off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsD-wodn288 Apparently Jamesy had stolen a blog post that this person wrote about Lord of The Rings and they weren't known by anyone, they don't even like that article anymore, but still! Go see that video instead of watching Jamesy and support them if you find value on their work.

-Hey, Jamesy. Jamesy. You do know that epilepsy and head injuries or memory issues don't take you threaten, lie and weaponize your audience against people who call out your plagiarism with the evidence in hand, right? That has literally nothing to do actually, because you had to be aware off of the issue for you to lie about it after someone else brought it up. After the first time it happened, you could have hired another beta reader to tell you that ups, your memory/epilepsy/memory issues/ADHD strike again and you don't remember from where you took that quote from, sorry! You had money for that expensive ass camera, you could have. -Like, my guy, there were so many steps involved here. So many steps from writing, production, backlash and your response to the backlash. Even if any part on this was an honest mistake, something I don't fucking believe in because fuck you, you had millions of opportunities to rectified it and change it. And yet you didnd't. And so here we are, without you receiving not even a miserable fucking like. Go to hell. A mistake doesn't get repeated so many times for years. That was all a choice, bitch. Fuck you.

And here is where I stopped because his voice is like nail on my ears.

Don't look at his video, it's truly not worth it. DON'T LEAVE COMMENTS EITHER, YOUTUBE TAKES THAT AS ENGAGEMENT ANYWAY.

[full-of-malice]

i sometimes feel like the community can give allos the wrong idea of what it is and feels like to be asexual or aromantic, and especially both.

like i feel when searching for perspectives you either find that being aroace is the greatest thing that ever happened it's so cool and swag or that's it's utterly miserable. when it's more then often both. it's a big package of good and bad.

it's part of you which means it's something so beautiful and powerful and right and wonderful and that's something to be proud of.

on the flip side as a romance favorable aroace person, it hurts like shit. i know that i won't feel like other people. i want to seek out a relationship but i know i'll never love them the way that they deserve and the way that any other person could love them because i will never feel romantically attracted to them. i feel the need to disclose this to people because i don't want to hurt them. i don't want to be a shitty person just for trying to find a relationship.

i've seen allos online claim how Easy it would be to be aroace. oh how they wish they were aroace no more crushes no more problems.

they don't realize that society is so romance and sex focused that you are forgotten and left to the side. and that even your own community might not support you if you aren't perfect. they fail to realize that people around you won't believe you or care. that society tricks you so you feel like you're missing out on things. being queer means that conservatives hates you and even if you don't feel attraction to anyone they still want you dead. like it is not all sunshine dragons and rainbows i swear to god.

also a completely different gripe but i will Kill the asexual extra free time jokes with my bare hands goodness gracious

[understandableparadox]

Queer Charecters in One Peice.

The queer community lives and dies but those who remain in sight. What constitutes this sight? From top down, it's Activism. Advocating for yourself, those around you and those you will never see. Community, advocating for yourself and those around you. Then there is seeing yourself as something worthy of protecting, worthy of expression.  Worthy to speak in your own defense. That was an exceedingly pretentious opening for a post regarding one piece and its themes but I do believe that it's a good flat layer in which we can build our understanding of the importance of seeing Militant Queer characters. 

To be militant means to be combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, often in favor of extreme and confrontational methods. It is often shown to be a negative state of being. Survivors of the rise of JpegTubers angrily waving their stick puppet around yapping yelping and parking because a lesbian was miffed that she was only socially acceptable as a tab on someone's browser may sit this explanation out, please enjoy the cookies, pizza and soda left outside of the seminar hall, don't bitch about them being store brand tho. 

We still see this bastardization of what it means to be militant in shows and movies, Milquetoast hand wringing writers eager to join the laughs at the straw men they crafted with dyed hair and pronouns waved about to pantomime the faux outrage they believe comes with being militant. “Ah yes, those Snowflakes will most certainly care that I'm placing this Sticker on the back of my truck~! Mmmm, their outrage, delightful, tasty, a Special Little treat for a Special Little Man~ WAIT NO, BIG MAN, BIG MAN, BEHOLD THE BALLS ON MY TRUCK, A SIGN THAT MY OWN BALLS ARE JUST AS SWOLLEN AND ENGORGED, A BEACON OF MASCULINITY THAT ANY MEDICAL PRACTITIONER WILL WEEP AT!” What was I talking about…? 

Oh yeah if i ask you to come up with a list of characters that follow this little diddy. A well meaning, white suburbanite, oft well to do who is overly vocale on social issues much to the detriment to their own social circles. Switching the tracks, a young black woman with a protective hairstyle or Big afro. Maybe a green jacket in most weathers.Attends rallies and goes about abusing bullhorns via shouting about black issues, often alienating her from her own friend group or creating discord between them because she may have white friends that are rather Perturbed by her rhetoric.  The second may be played to attempt a positive characterization but it still comes from the same hay bale. 

This character comes from a shift in public perception that the Advocates words must be genial and pleasant if it is to make the mark. That their struggles must be made palatable and consumable to the larger audience if they are to be accepted. Of course this is a larger load of shit then the streets of london prior to the advent of public plumbing. 

Yes this is the Malcom x vs Martin luther bullshit again, a million smarter authors have penned this shit enough time for the squids to beg for a bit reprieve and I promise i'm not going to go over it to much as I have nothing clever to say on it aside from a brief summary of pop cultural digestion and acidic markings. 

Martin Luther is seen as the Soft Figure, the Proper advocate. The one that will go to a place and make a heart warming street and march and hope the police will beat them a little bit softer or hope the towns water pressure isnt as bad (an unforgivable assertion by the by, those marches were massively disruptive, you cant march that many people down a large street and not have it be in some way fucking disrubtive.) This gets turned into someone like Professor X, one who balks at his own power and helps humanity in hopes of appealing to the shared empathy of all. This is contrasted to Malcolm X, the black panther movement, the Threat of violence in service to a social cause. The Scary Other. This is morphed to magneto, the one who demands mutant acceptance now but is revealed to be a mutant supremacist. Song Meet Dance. 

Now what the fuck does all of this have to do with one piece? Simple. It is the story of the Militant Other. 

But do I hear someone say, it's a shounen manga that's filled with gratuitous fighting! Of course we're going to see those labeled as the “other” being militant! Well I must simply retort that you are trespassing, please leave im vary scared, im holding a sword and quivering in place, my fucking teeth are chattering, get out please, you can have a bottle of water on your way out but take no more I beg of thee. 

The story of one piece is about characters that are othered at birth, made others by circumstance and society or choosing to embrace their otherness and becoming militant.  Who shall we look at first? The main character?! Oh you treat me so well, what a delight~!

Now Luffy and his story isn't inherently tied to him being queer but it sets up a very clear arc path for other queer characters that we will see later on in this post. If you are not aware, luffy is almost violently asexual, by violent i mean in that way that if I was an obnoxious power scaler i could easily list it as a power feat. please note the episode when he first met boa hancock, a woman drawn to be sexually attractive with the explicit power of turning people who find her cute or attractive into stone. Luffy gets hit with this and just ignores it. Fuck you it counts and I like it… ok im sorry, i dont know how you reacted to that information, that was so rude of me, im so sorry, please sit down, you can have another water bottle ontop of the courtesy failed robbery water bottle you recived. Please try to remain hydrated. 

Funny aside, Luffy is Himself. He is always Himself. There is no situation in which he can act as anything other than himself in all situations the self that he embodies is indelible. He understands this about himself thus surrounds himself with people that are able to not change the self but help the self become more with the promise of the same happening to those around him. 

He is also astoundingly passionate in what he believes in, he is passionate about the causes of his friends, he is passionate about the causes of people he finds to be good. This passion often shows itself as Extreme, Violent and one may even say Confrontational. Of course some may not consider punching someone directly in the face multiple times as confrontational but apply your better judgment to this matter as you consider it. 

Luffy is a militant activist. When he supports a cause, it's mostly for its ideological aspects. He believes that people should be free in the most basic of terms, they should be free to travel, grow, eat, laugh. Anything that hinders that is a direct insult to Luffy's ongoing system of thought and means you are going to be punched or ignored. 

Lets keep going down the line to see who else fits in this theme, shall we? No? What the fuck man? I gave you two water bottles, and they're like…Good water bottles, they don't even have those squiggly walls, they're like… smooth plastic square bottles. 

Well I'm going with or without you, starting with my beloved Bon clay. We meet bon prior to the start of the alabasta arc, fished out of the water by the straw hat crew in which he gives his express thanks, here we are given a stark humanization. We get to see him eagerly match pace with the energy of the crew, eagerly feeding into their jokes, showing off his powers, laughing with them.  

A side note. Laughing has always been made a huge deal in one piece, whether it's the other characters' starkly unique laughs or most arcs ending off with the crew and cast laughing. It's a show of celebration, that you are in a joyous mood, that you are Happy. I wonder if that's important to any narrative theme… anyways

I think this is all astoundingly important because they show bon clay as a fun weirdo who is in love with the self they have become before they are shown as a part of the villains crew. It establishes that they are more than their narrative born role as a minor antagonist, they are a complex human that is capable of complex thoughts and ideology. Show cased by the end of the arc, the exact moment that i fell in love with them, like really fucking hard. I'm talking about running into senpai, bread in mouth. My hearts going doki doki, doctors are flipping shit trying to label it as heart arrhythmia but oh no it's not you P.H.Dick it's the power of love burning like a goddamn cyclone smashing into a oil refinery, that explosion isn't disrupting the wind flow but it is sucking up those flames like a really well thought out sexual innuendo that your super duper impressed by and think is really funny and want to congratulate me on for making such a cool sexual joke. 

They sacrifices himself in order to allow the straw hats to escape from alabasta. Ending their appearance with a heartfelt farewell to the crew that they have fought with only a day ago, that he was willing to kill on orders a day ago. Leaving them with the words

“One may stray from the path of a man, one may stray from the path of a woman, but we never stray from the path of a human.”

FUCK THATS A REALLY GOOD LINE, anyways we see him again later in impel down in one of the hell layers, with even the scorching heat and arid air unable to squash his eccentric personality like the god damn wonder they are. Dancing in the depths of hell they soon hear that luffy has broken in and rush lower through the layers to meet up with them, Eager to join up and fight with him. 

Again, we are seeing behavior Vary similar to luffy, that actions which serve their passions are to be taken always. A passion for friendship, loyalty, all of that. The willingness to serve time in a massive human rights violation of a prison…ok thats a little vague, thats most prisons… Anyways we do get to see more of bon clay's belief system as we meet both our next queer character and our next militant character. 

Ivankov. They to me are the true exemplification of all three levels of advocacy in service to a group of peoples existence. At the most basic level, ivankov cannot hide who they are, it's impossible, I mean look at her! He has powers that can increase the size of their face, they wear makeup so thick it can be peeled off, they are Violently of the self. 

For their community, we have the new kama queendom, she has created a paradise in the depths of super hell jail to protect those around her. Even outside of the jail he has done much of the same by creating the okama queendom, the island outside of government control in which men and women flock in order to be able to express their true selves. Notably, despite ivenkovs ability to turn men into women, many of them do not make use of this power. They are free to express themselves without the expectation of fitting into that role visually. That's the community aspect to me. 

Then we get the more militant activism, ivenkovs role as a member of the revolutionary army. The way he provides an outpost in the middle of the grand line, his funding through his miracle medical work, his willingness to fight for those she will never ever see. 

And there are more, we see other queer characters in the revolutionary army, and they have yet to be shown in any sort of negative light. Their militant activism, their willingness to fight and rally others to fight for a cause is shown to be positive. 

The desire to fight for a cause throughout one piece is shown to be an overall positive cause, all forms of it. Whether it's through the more peaceful methods such as otohime or through violence and confrontation such as Fisher tiger. 

So to reiterate because this is getting hella long, I love One Piece because it allows its queer characters to fight for what they believe in, in any way that they desire. That queer characters are allowed to be weird, they are allowed to be evil, they are ugly, beautiful, powerful, anything and everything! 

Thank you for reading.

[sunfoxfic]

I think part of the reason why I'm always going to at least somewhat identify with the terms "cis" and "straight" is that there's so much weird rhetoric drifting around the queer community that tries to say that queerness - particularly queer attraction - is Inherently Different from cis/straight experiences.

Honestly, I've seen a lot of pushback against this idea in discussion about what separates trans and cis gender identity. A lot of people acknowledge that actually, cis people can have just as deep and meaningful and nuanced conceptions of gender as trans people! It takes many forms - whether it's called Cis+, or bringing up that crossdressers and genderqueer people who still identify as cis historically have had a place in the queer community, or whatever it is.

Discussion of attraction doesn't seem to have gotten that far. Like, okay, I'll bring up an example.

A long time ago I saw a post on tumblr which was a person talking about how they write sex scenes between people who they personally are not attracted to. It was really great! They talked about how physicality is a gender neutral trait - that everyone has skin and bones and fat and tendons and veins, and genitalia has very little to do with the way they write sex scenes because they focus in on those traits. But this was framed in the way that they're always able to write queer attraction, because queer attraction focuses in on physicality in a way that straight attraction just doesn't.

And, I don't know, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth? To imply that no straight person has ever cared about their partner's traits aside from the parts that are homogenically sexy? To imply that lesbians always have more in common with gay men than they do with straight men, or that gay men always have more in common with lesbians than they do with straight women?

Aside from the reality that there are a lot of queer people who are quite vain when it comes to these types of things (and no, you can't "no true Scotsman" your way out of that), this rhetoric also discourages straight people from relating to queer people - and yes, they can relate sexually, because sexuality isn't this blessed thing that's So Different from any other human trait or activity.

Straight people can find skin and bones and fat and tendons and veins sexy. They can find someone attractive not because of how well they fit the mold of mainstream attractiveness. I thought the goal was to make this happen!

Straight people should be allowed to relate to queerness without their sexuality getting defined as queer without their consent. And I don't mean that as a backdoor for people who want to detach themselves from the movement out of embarrassment, I don't mean that because I want to exclude people who don't fit inside the norm but don't want to adopt a label more specific than queer.

What I'm saying is that, for better or worse, there will always be people who don't feel like the word "queer" works for them, but that doesn't mean they can't relate to queerness. Trying to redefine queerness so that these people either have to take on a label that makes them uncomfortable or deny the way they relate to the queer community does no one any favors.

[ichthyosophy]

on the topic of abolition of the term “paraphilia”:

i often see an argument like “well, you know, technically, all kinks and fetishes are considered paraphilias!” or something similar. it became especially common in the past year or so since the identity of “paraphiliac” became more popular and extended beyond the several most stigmatized attraction patterns to more socially acceptable sexual interests. this argument is typically used in favor of the destigmatization of paraphilic identities. however, even though this statement is technically true, i believe that the only position it can meaningfully support is the idea that we should get rid of the term “paraphilia.” i`m not driven by a sentiment that “paraphilic” attractions are bad or immoral. there is simply no good use for the term (unless your goal is to exclude some "problematic" sexualities from the broader queer discourse) and, frankly, no meaningful scientific backing to it.

i assume that the history of the psychiatric term “paraphilia” is known to most people who will ever find themselves reading this post, so i refrain from going into details on this matter. it has been criticized by scientists and human rights activists alike, but the term is still present in the DSM and ICD. given that the diagnosis of “paraphilic disorder” is predominately used in a forensic context, i tend to believe that the reasons behind this are purely political rather than scientifically objective.

usually, when we talk about “paraphilic” attractions, we understand them as recurrent and intense patterns of sexual arousal to unconventional erotic stimuli. but how can we measure the intensity of erotic desire? where is the objective line and what`s the difference between conventional and unconventional erotic stimuli? there are no cross-cultural studies on the statistical prevalence of “paraphilic” erotic preferences i`m aware of, and for many reasons, i genuinely doubt that such a study can be conducted. what erotic stimuli are considered “conventional” varies greatly depending on the culture and the time period we want to examine. we can see it by paying attention to beauty standards, to erotic art and texts, to attitudes towards intergenerational relationships, homosexuality, or polyamory in different communities and different eras. none of the “conventional” for modern western society erotic stimuli actually constitutes a cultural universal. therefore, the psychiatric concept of “paraphilia” is rooted in western universalism.

of course, we can try to change the definition and conceptualize “paraphilias” as a socially constructed cultural phenomenon rather than a psychiatric condition. anyway, in every given society will always be some people with statistically uncommon, "abnormal" sexual interests. with this premise we can easily come up with the idea that the same pattern of attraction should be categorized as “paraphilia” in the culture for which this attraction pattern is atypical, but as “normophilia” in another culture for which it`s more conventional. i guess it could work out, but… with this framework we will, for example, inevitably return to describing homosexual (homophilic?) desires as paraphilic at least within the context of some particular cultures. it`s a controversial area and it will be used in bad faith by many. here it`s the moment when it stops being a scientific issue and becomes a political one, and i would prefer if everyone was strategically careful with such matters.

the DSM-5 makes a distinction between “paraphilias” and “paraphilic disorders,” where paraphilic attractions are non-pathological in themselves and don`t constitute a psychiatric diagnosis but are necessary diagnostic criteria for “paraphilic disorders.” to be diagnosed with “paraphilic disorder” patient has to experience distress or dysfunction caused by their abnormal attraction and/or engage in criminal/abusive sexual acts. i know that many pro-paraphilia advocates see this change as a giant and fundamentally important step forward. i must say that in my opinion, it`s not sufficient at all.

well, if the term “paraphilia” is misleading and unscientific, the term “paraphilic disorder” is just outright bullshit. individuals with atypical sexual interests experience ego-dystonic ideations because of the overwhelming social stigma they face in daily life, it`s a sociogenic phenomenon. that`s why people with less stigmatized erotic preferences experience distress significantly less often than people with more marginalized attractions. nowadays, when a homosexual person is distressed and ego-dystonic due to the stigma around their sexual orientation (which may be kinda less common than a decade or two ago but still is a very real and widespread situation, especially among gay people from more homophobic cultures or those with more conservative/religious upbringing), no qualified mental health professional will diagnose them with “homophilic disorder.” moreover, there is nothing pathologic about an oppressed individual experiencing some form of distress because of the oppression they face. sure, individuals with such feelings should be able to safely receive help and counseling from a mental health professional if that`s what they desire (however, i would argue that community support is endlessly more effective in most cases), but it`s, in fact, a normal human reaction which shouldn`t constitute a diagnosis.

the psychiatric trend of pathologization of abusive/criminal behavior also makes no sense. crimes and abusive acts are not “mental disorders.” so-called “paraphilic disorders” are the only subgroup of mental disorders defined specifically based on criminal history. you know, heterosexuality and homosexuality are also “recurrent and persistent sexual interests” that may result in distress, dysfunction, or criminal/abusive behavior. for example, heterosexual teleiophilic male rapists, the most common kind of sexual abusers, are not diagnosed with “gynephilic disorder” even if their crime was motivated by their heterosexual teleiophilic desires. so why does it become diagnostic criteria when it comes to “paraphilic” abusers? there is, once again, no scientific basis behind it.

with this text, i don`t want to police the labels people choose to describe their identity and personal experiences. of course, if you find comfort in an identity descriptor like “paraphilia” and want to reclaim it for some reason, feel free to do so, and have fun. however, if reading this post will eventually lead at least some people to question the validity of the concept of “paraphilia” as an objective scientific phenomenon and the political implications of using this term, i would be quite happy about it.

do we really need the term for sexual desires socioculturally deemed abnormal? luckily, we already have a good word for abnormal and marginalized sexual interests, and the word in question is “queer.” basically, the distinction between "queerness" and "paraphilias" is "non-normative sexualities that have gained some degree of social acceptance in a western sociocultural context" and "non-normative sexualities that haven't yet gained social acceptance in a western sociocultural context."

fetishes (technically considered paraphilias) are queer, kinks (technically considered paraphilias) are queer, and marginalized sexual orientations (technically considered paraphilias) are queer too. deal with it.

[whiskeysmulti]

30 Days Of Pride- Day 12!

Remembering Orlando

.Whiskey.

8 years now and it's still terrifying to think of.

But that's a sad reality in the queer community. We think we've made these bars and nightclubs our own so we'd have a safe space to be ourselves and be accepted, but even then we're not. Even then it's not even a safe space anymore.

Consider this a rant and call me a bitch if you need to, but it needs said. No one cares if you die when you're queer. And I'm not meaning this in a literal sense. But in the fact that the media paints a bad enough picture of the community with every stereotype they use and half the time we're just used for some made for TV sob story movie, it's never normalized like cis, straight relationships are as they're constantly thrown in our faces. And then something happens. It's usually an "isolated case" of one hate crime against an LGBTQ person and it's brushed aside. And even when it's a tragedy like Pulse was, no one gives a shit. No one cares that someone lost their life partner. Someone lost their child. Someone lost the only family or friend they might have still had. It's like we're not even human in the eyes of the news. I saw the damn comments on the Pulse shooting broadcast and was absolutely disgusted at the majority being a long the lines of "good." or "This was god's work, now go back and get the rest of them." Bunch of bullshit hate speech was all it was, they do the same with most LGBT deaths.

As bitter as it sounds of me, that's something I always think of when I remember the Pulse shooting. No one cares if you die when you're queer, in fact it's like doing them a favor. 49 people lost their lives that night, 49 families lost someone who could have meant the world to them and people celebrated it. And in contrast, 49 people who might not have had anywhere else to turn where they could be themselves safely, lost their lives and people still celebrated it, they did the same with Club Q. It happens almost every time a queer club is shot up. And people wonder why we call it being in the closet when we're not open about ourselves? Because we literally have to hide, because this is how the world views us. This is why we still need pride. So people understand us better and so tragedies like Pulse can be prevented from happening again in the future and that one day others can look at us as humans who have a right to live.

[9w1ft]

Bouncing back on your Miss Americana reading of where Taylor is regarding advocacy. I don't know where she's at NOT and what the plan is. But it seemed pretty loud to me, during the 1989, rep and Lover eras, in her actions, themes and engagements. In what she said. In the was she seemed to educate herself on History, etc... That not only did she clearly want to be out. But she also wanted it to be loud (because she knew it would be). And she wanted to use her platform and the inevitable Big Conversion to bring about Good. Whether it was change, or just queer people everywhere seeing that "Hi, I'm Taylor. I'm here. I'm one of you.", that I don't know. But it is obvious she wanted to be knowledgeable in the ways she expressed herself about it, a very on brand care to be A Good Role Model, even in something this personal.

i think we should all be okay with acknowledging that she could probably have improved her messaging strategy following miss americana.

and i think nudging taylor to think about what more she could do is important because she ultimately sets the vision for her team and sometimes these kinds of processes go faster when there is a sense of urgency, executive commitment, and a directive.

and because the focus of the documentary was zoomed out a bit, it becomes more than just the realm of communities she is a part of. when you put it out there that you have realized that you could advocate for communities you are not a part of, people might naturally assume you want to now advocate for various different communities.

let me give an example. if you were being interviewed by 13 management for a job and were asked what you thought of taylor’s communication rollout in 2020, would you really tell her team 10/10 no notes? i don’t think anybody benefits from that feedback.

if i were ever so privileged as to work on taylor’s behalf to facilitating messaging to her fans during the black lives matter protests in the summer of 2020, for example, let’s say taylor was preoccupied, had a lot going on in her life, fine by me, i would have fought tooth and nail, calling in every bureaucratic favor, drafted and redrafted, for a different team-lead outcome than taylor silently exiting tumblr and eventually handing over the gram at a point in time where it comes off like an afterthought. and i wouldn’t have left her fans feeling disillusioned or feeling as though their perspective or lived experiences were somehow invalid or that they were being bad fans. much like you articulate with this ask, i know in my heart and through what i observe through her actions that taylor has well meaning intentions. that being said, i think there are ways to help her even better convey those intentions.

[mermaidsirennikita]

ARC Review: The Secret Lives of Country Gentlemen by K.J. Charles

4.25/5. Releases 3/7/2023.

Note: I was granted an audio ARC, and am reviewing the book with that in mind.

For when you're vibing with... Queer romance with a bit of mystery, a unique and transformative setting, "coming into your own as an adult" vibes, CRIME FAMILIES, and some good old-fashioned "we started out as hookup partners and oops now we're madly in love" shit.

Gareth, raised by an aunt and uncle who didn't love him and abandoned by his father in favor of a new family, has never been super confident. But he feels wanted when he's with "Kent", the man he's been meeting for anonymous sex for a week... until, that is, he fucks it up. Discovering that his father is dead and he's now a baronet is a worthy distraction, though he doesn't plan on staying at the marshy property he's inherited for long. Until he runs into Kent again--except Kent is actually Joss Doomsday, the up-and-coming leader of a family of powerful (and dangerous) smugglers. And though Gareth and Joss are initially on opposite sides, it quickly becomes apparent that the spark between them certainly hasn't died out... But pursuing it might put Gareth at odds with Joss's enemies.

I've finally tried K.J. Charles, and God, she's fucking good. This romance is well-written, hot, sweet, and accompanied by a mystery plot with stakes that I actually understood. Which is hard for me! (Was it really a mystery plot, or an imperiled lover plot that sort of involved mystery but was really about the obligations of being in a crime family and--)

Quick Takes:

--Joss Doomsday is one of my new favorite romance heroes, full stop. That doesn't mean I didn't love Gareth, because I totally did (and they're given solid division in terms of POV and characterization, which I liked--there was no "Gareth is the protagonist and Joss is the untouchable love interest", which has turned me off of some m/m romances I've read.). Gareth is funny, a bit hapless, extremely relatable in terms of trying to find his place in the world and sort of coming up with *shrug emoji*. But Joss is just... well, hot, obviously, but similarly relatable... in the fact that he does know his place, and his place involves being weighed down with familial expectations and responsibility. Gareth's journey in the book involves finding a family for the first time and taking on the mantle of responsibility despite growing up as a loner, whereas Joss's journey involves realizing that he can love and care for his family and call them out when they're wrong, and find things that belong to him and him alone. He's so very lovable.

Also, he was DEBAUCHED!!! By a pirate--I'm sorry, a PRIVATEER. How can I not love a guy who is like "well, he fucked me six ways from Sunday, so I guess he did debauch me". Joss I love your work.

--Speaking of families, there is so much good family drama in this book. You have Gareth's whole thing, as he slowly builds connections with his sister (who he never met before their father's death) and... his sister's aunt? Who became his father's mistress after Gareth's stepmother died? That was a character I truly loved. Gareth just needed a mom, y'all! Much of Gareth's issues involve struggling with understanding who his father was, and damn, if that doesn't resonate.

Joss's family issues were uh... more complicated, even. But the diversity of characters makes it feel all the more real. Good people fuck up. Bad people have human weaknesses. Everyone was delightfully fleshed out.

--I loved the world of the Marsh. There's a lot of like, descriptions of of flora and fauna (Gareth loves bugs, y'all) and the culture of this little community that's kind of heavily dependent on organized crime and layers of generation-crossing dynamics? It's remarkably rich, and not the type of atmosphere you see a lot of in historical romance right now. The layers of it all made it feel very real to me.

--This book had some of the loveliest loved confessions I've ever read--and at the same time, some of the messiest relationship dynamics, in the best possible way. We open on Joss and Gareth's last anonymous hookup, after which both assume they'll never see each other again, and once they do... There's a lot of bitter exes energy, which I'm personally very partial. That sniping, that tit for tat, that "well I NEVER" while they both desperately wanna fuck. It's Good Shit.

--As a heads up, there is period-accurate homophobia in this book (not a ton--both Joss and Gareth do have supportive relatives, but they also have not so supportive relatives). Joss and Gareth both fear being outed, that is a very real threat throughout. I don't think it's excessive; nor does it read like self-loathing from either man.

The Sex Stuff:

Hot. But also funny? But also hot. Again, we start out the gate with explicit sex, and there are several more instances of it. There are interesting conversations about the dynamics of their sex life, too--who's "in charge", who should be in top, what does it mean, does it mean anything? Joss likes to see Gareth naked while he's clothed, which is something I ABSOLUTELY FUCKING LOVED. In many ways, this book is a great example of how sex can be character and sex can be plot. There were a couple of sex scenes in this book that don't really tie to story, but they do reveal things about Joss and Gareth and simply their relationship--I actually went back to listen to the first chapter again after the book was over, just to get that sense of Gareth and Joss's initial connection, shallow as it was, again--contrasting to their final sex scene.

But also, "FUCK ME LIKE YOUR PIRATE" and Joss joking about having Gareth's legs around his shoulders.... hot sex can also be funny sex, thank you K.J. Charles.

I'm super happy to see that there will be another Doomsday book--I loved the characters, and I loved this world. I want more.

Thank you to Netgalley and Dreamscape Media for providing me with a copy of this book. All opinions are my own.

[faeriefully]

Oh, my bad, you're way too down the rabbit hole to speak with actually. But that's the problem when religion is brought into the mix. It is, by nature, a system of blind belief over the physical world, and I was trying to discuss what affects the physical world. I'd rather care about my fellow man in the here and now, with less to answer for on judgment day than you. Some of the best (but still strict) Christians I've met in life will say they don't agree with a lifestyle, but it's none of their business. And never say another word. But those are good people.

I actually wasn't raised in a rigid household. If you interpreted anything correctly (hah), you'd see that my mom didn't adhere to such strict teachings. She always let us follow our own path while still taking us to church and teaching compassionate morals outside of religion. It led to us thinking for ourselves enough to see right from wrong, regardless of allegiance. Which is how I'm allowed to believe in a higher power and still despise the absolute and UNNECESSARY hatred being focused on people in the queer community. (Which I don't even belong to. I just have, you know, compassion.) It's someone else's life. If they're not hurting anyone, why should I get to control it? Why would I even want to? How do you not see that all of the recent backlash against the trans community is nothing but the Republican Party blowing the scope of a community (half a percent of the population) out of the water to win political favor. With public opinion in majority favor of gay rights and Roe v Wade repealed, they needed something to galvanize the base.

Anyway, Target moved pride displays to the back to protect their customers from documented violent threats, which is more humanity than I see in modern Christians. And Target is a lifeless corporation. That's how low the bar is. Disgusting and disturbing.

Just don't act like you won any debate (as if we could have one, I now understand) when all you did was say, "So anyway, religion." You didn't argue or refute anything I said with fact. You will continue to use the Bible only as a tool to hate things which confuse you and ignore the sins you don't care about. (And won't even mention when addressed.) And no, even by Biblical standards, I have nothing for which to repent, so I don't think I will.

Well first, that’s not what faith is…

Moving on:

Because it’s not my morality, it’s not about what I want. It’s about God’s holiness and commands. Also, you jump from your household to Christians to the Republican Party in about 100 words which makes responding to any single misconception about any of those things difficult, which I know is the point.

The issue here is you think you have independent thought rather than the only two options— being of Christ or being of the serpent. Which, if you were raised with the Bible and know it as you claim, should be the basis of your understanding. However, again, you’ve proven not to be qualified to discuss hermeneutics.

Not once in any of this have I condoned being aggressive towards anyone nor even commented on it. That’s a very big jump and assumption of my beliefs, which you’ve never inquired about only assumed thus far.

I also have compassion for those involved in all of this. At no point do I wish them harm or pain or damnation. This is one of the reasons I will not lie to them and seek their spiritual life and redemption. I will share the truth in love, but I will not lie to them and harm them by encouraging delusions or sin. (That’s why they tell me to die in my inbox weekly.)

I haven’t been debating you, you’re right, because none of the arguments presented have been valid. They’re all either strawmen, blatant misunderstandings or false assumptions, or personal attacks. Your definition of hate is incorrect to begin with and if your presuppositions are flawed. I haven’t been confused this entire time, and your responses have been quite predictable honestly. You’re not saying anything I haven’t encountered in my years of genuinely studying scripture. It’s quite bold of you to think an anonymous ask on tumblr of all places will make me stumble.

Your final disqualification for attempting to correct me on anything biblical is your last sentence— if you genuinely don’t believe you have anything to repent for from a biblical view, then you do not understand the Bible in any capacity.

[groovyships]

Actually if I was an elder queer and had to watch

1.) all of my interesting lovely eccentric SEXUAL queer friends die because the government didn't care and

2.) my community regularly being censored, subjected to purity culture, and shamed

only for young queers down the line to try to get rid of proud kink at Pride because it's "unclean" or "unsafe for minors" or "will make the straights think we're bad" I'd start breaking shit and becoming so bitter. Imagine all of the rights you fought tooth and nail for get flushed down the drain because baby gays prioritize being palatable to society. You are not doing anyone a favor. These are people who gave everything to be able to express themselves for one day openly and proudly around other community members. You are not going to take that away for a Citibank sponsorship and the illusion of minor safety. My first experience at Pride was going back when I was 15 and getting hugged by gay men in pup masks because we were all just so happy to be there and meet other people like us. They're the same men who comforted me when I cried from the anti-abortion and anti-gay protestors at the parade. Because they've done this before and know just what to say to make it better. They've walked the mile and did their time and they KNOW better than you. I'm sorry but they do! This is their fucking life! We who have the discourse are just now really learning about it and flowering into adult queers. We cannot sanitize our colorful, wonderful history. Because the people who were alive to see it won't be around for much longer. Folks who were young during times of liberation and a rapidly developing culture are going to be dead in 20 years or less. Genuinely terrified that pride might just be a glorified advertisement block with drag queens and rainbow floats as spice by the time I'm 40.

Please stop trying to beat the flavor out of queerness with a broom and a bible. You are not helping.

[thatfeyboy]

It's frightening to me that even progressive seem to cling to racist or gender critical views; even more so how many excuses are made for said views. If you see a box standard white guy and your first thought is "danger" you are in fact having a racist/sexist thought. It doesn't matter what you've experienced.

Is there a single (good) explanation for thinking a person, based on an immutable trait of their person(race/gender(cis or trans)/sexuality) is dangerous, bad, maladjusted, stupid, etc? Is it fair to treat them as if those things are true? I'd think most people would be horrified if such a fundamental part of themselves made people assume they are a danger to others. I'm sure many people in a variety of minorities can verify the feeling.

So I ask, why is it ok to do it to this group in particular? I know the usual go to is privilege. But like, what privilege really? Boys get treated like shit, for being boys, all the time. It makes people think you are violent, sexually insatiable, emotionally immature, incapable of receiving harm, and entitled. It makes parents assume their boys do not need any help and emotionally neglect/abuse them, as well as ignore their cries for help. I see people taking massive dumps on men for being men all the time, with no care given to the aftermath of that, unless of course queers or black people are brought up, like when you spew hate you gotta go "oh but not you guys who are obviously included in the sweeping generalization I just made lol your not actually real men". But even then, the maleness is seen as a benefit that makes them less worthy of care. Only the other statuses count, as this supposed inherently privileged attribute couldn't possibly be adding to the problem. Always placed at the bottom of the que, always secretly the offender.

Having to have a secondary trans status revealed to not be treated like shit is not ok(not to mention infantalizing and transphobic). A person being queer, disable, etc is none of your fucking business nor required for you to reveal in order to get compassion. Just a standard cis het white man can still be isolated and abused, but clearly some of you all have decided that distancing based on appearances is ok when you do it.

I'm not even going to get into the white thing, suffice to say that seeing someone as inherently a racist based on skin tone is in fact a racist view.

Bottom line here, especially considering the economy and state of the government in the US, no one is having a good time. Being cis/het/white/male will not save you from being mistreated and abused, nor will it grant you stability, good favor, or a chance at moving economically vertical. In fact some groups have made a point of specifically excluding anyone that is too many of the traits above. It is an awful fate to suffer and not be believed or listened to, and to be told you specifically do not need help or community. None of this is to say other groups do not suffer, or that this group has it the worst of anyone, but they certainly receive the least empathy.

some of you are dangerously susceptible to men hating terf ideology

[jack-bytez-genuine-corner]

Rant [No, I won't make this a habit I promise I just needed to get this off my chest]

People who don't know that intersectionality exists shouldn't be allowed into any community. Being near told that the experience of violence I've had doesn't matter cause of my skin tone is some of the most disgusting, vile shit I've seen in my life. And it came from a POC, someone who should OUTRIGHT KNOW why that's bad.

People get murdered by bigots for simply existing, and we have members in the Queer community who truthfully want to argue that THOSE people getting killed isn't that big of a deal cause of the color of their skin and the oppression they faced doesn't matter. I know ABSOLUTELY NO ONE wants to view racism as a mindset, but it's that. It's the idea that the suffering of some doesn't matter because of an innate characteristic they can't change. You aren't an ally if you believe that some people's suffering simply doesn't matter to your in group, you aren't an ally if you believe in acceptable causalities.

This is why I REALLY don't like anyone who is gay and is ambivalent on trans people's right to exist, this is why I don't like people who refuse to talk actual racism in favor of stoking a stereotype of all white people being innately racist. Because if your actual want is to help others, than you need to confront those issues head on, not let others take the fall for you, not relitigate racism into a more "Acceptable" form, but actually deal with the problems that exist instead of blanketing that shit under "DAE white people XD" but actually going for the issue. There's racist white people in the community, we can ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT IT, but instead it's vague BS meant to stoke division.

I'm not a perfect human being, but if anyone ever tells you that your suffering isn't meaningful cause of your genitals or your sex or your pronouns or the color of their skin, know that they are wrong, period. I've never been more insulted online and I literally have "Loser" in my bio, and I didn't think this place could rival fucking Twitter in terms of facilitating awful people.

Over 60K notes lowkey justifying why certain people being literally killed is acceptable. 60K notes basically justifying that the oppression queer people who are white may face isn't meaningful. Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but good lord kindness is *fucking dead* in the world and at this point I should pack in my expectations for humanity cause even the people who have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE WITH THESE SUBJECTS are more than willing to shield the god damn fucks cause CERTAIN people just have it coming. Like fuck being an "Ally" if this shit flies. Like I felt pretty angry when I saw how little care was given from BLM towards other minority groups who faced police brutality, but I figured a rising tide raises all ships. I felt pretty angry with how little coverage of missing Native women cause they just disappear and nobody cares, but maybe it's OK that some people got coverage when they went missing cause rising tide. But 60K notes... On a post that's justifying that certain people can't face oppression or face violence cause of their skin color DESPITE being gay, DESPITE being Trans, DESPITE all that...

Just fucking pack it up I guess, we're fucked. If 60K people just can't see why oppression is bad period, regardless of who it's at, then fucking pack, it, up. Set the nukes off, suck us into a black hole, humanity is a god damn waste of time for everyone involved because people can't even be assed to SEE how innocent people being hurt is bad. "Oh but MY oppression is worse!" OK? Good for you! You won the contest! Except this isn't a contest against who had it worse, it's a contest to prevent ANYONE from having it AS BAD AS YOU DID, and squabbling over this BS just enables the exact same division that allowed you to be treated like dogshit in the first place!

And yes, if you push the idea that queer white people can't face oppression, you are shielding the bigots who do the oppressing, full stop. You're using the exact same argument misogynistic, old, white fucks make about how women are "Asking for it" for having the NERVE to dress how they see fit. It's disgusting. Period.

[fandomsandfeminism]

Every time I sit down to read about queer history, I'm always struck by how deeply sexuality and gender and gender expression used to be interwoven. (And for many of us still are.)

These days, I see people arguing that straight cis drag queens and GNC folks aren't "actually lgbt+" (one of the limits of using lgbt+ rather than queer), and acting like trans/nonbinary/genderqueer folks are a wholly separate group than lesbian/gay/bi/etc folks. People, lgbt+ people, talking bad about xenogenders and neopronouns because they are too weird, just for attention, giving us all a bad name, etc.

But this separation between gender, sexuality, and presentation is *new*

Looking back at history, especially within US and Western Europe, and either you were a heterosexual man/woman who presented accordingly, or you *werent.* That was the divide. If you transgressed on any 1 of those things- you were transgressing on ALL of them.

Being gay/bi inherently called your gender into question. Being gender nonconforming immediately reflected upon your sexuality. There wasn't a divide between these concepts. They were one and the same. You were *normal* or you were queer. And of course, not all gay/bi/lesbian folks were crossdressing (how else did one stay in the closet?) , and not all people in gender nonconforming clothing had a sexual interest in the same sex. But these ideas were constantly melding together. To be a man was to be straight and dress "like a man." To be a woman was to be straight and "dress like a woman." They defined each other.

In much of the country, you could be arrested if you weren't wearing at least 3 pieces of "correctly gendered" clothing. That's the rule that got a lot of folks arrested in gay bars- regardless of sex or gender. Even after same sex dancing was technically legalized, crossdressing would get you beaten and arrested by the cops. Cops would "inspect" bar patrons to ensure they were dressed in the "correct" clothes when raids occurred.

And that's not to say that the community was ever fully free of assimilationist/exclusionist factions. There have always been groups, generally of cis/gender-confirming gay, lesbian, and bisexuals who argued in favor of respectability and fitting in and showing a willingness to leave the crossdressers and drag queens and butches behind if it meant they could keep their white collar jobs. If it meant social tolerance and safety for *them.*

But we should be able to recognize that the heart and soul of queer Liberation is in unity and embracing the weird, not shunning it. That we are strongest when we stand together.

I don't think it's WRONG for us today to distinguish gender, sexuality, and presentation as different aspects of identity. But I think we should be very very careful to not let that nuance lead to exclusionary or over-compartmentalized thinking about queer issues.