#lgbt labels

[chaoticace2005]

Alastor misinterpreting modern LGBTQIA+ labels also leaves room for so much confusion with the rest of the cast:

(Based on @onesidedradiostatic ‘s posts)

-Genuinely thinks Husk is attracted to kitchenware, to the point where one of his “punishments” is not being allowed in the kitchen

-If Huskerdust then Alastor begins to question if Angel is secretly a pan

-Knows Angel isn’t a pan so Alastor tells him there is no chance if Huskerdust happening (talked about here)

-Angel saying he’s gay and Alastor questioning that because he was sure Angel was depressed

-Reevaluating the bisexual label AGAIN when he finds out Pentious has two dicks, causing him to question his previous statement of Vox being dickless

-Vaggie: Im Lesbian, Alastor: I don’t believe I’m familiar with that country

-Alastor thinking all angels and/or exorcists are lesbians (yes, this includes Adam and Lucifer)

-Him thinking of Charlie as half-lesbian, not because he’s biphobic but because she’s half angel

-Lucifer mentioning he’s kind of gender-fluid so he wonders if the fluid of Lucifer is what’s responsible for one’s gender

-Thinking trans means transportation/transit/transcontinental railroad and assumes they’re the best people to travel with

-Him thinking “bisexual” refers to having two partners

-Him thinking “bisexual” refers to being attracted to bicycles so he removes all bicycles (and pans because fuck you Husker) from the hotel

-Him thinking the term “ace” refers to a phenomenal card player because he beat Husk in poker, taunts Husk for not being “ace” anymore (Alastor stole Husk’s aceness)

[green-static]

Descriptors are so weird like

Sex repulsed? Yeah definitely, most of the time. I feel sick to my stomach and genuinely start stressing out over it.

But there’s also times where I’m like indifferent about it??? BUT THEN!

There’s also that moment when I’m like “the idea of sex and being physically connected and intimate in some kind of way is beautifully romantic.”

And sometimes I’m like “yeah these two characters are fucking. Good for them. *aggressively draws them naked* “

But like I’m still like wanting to throw up at the idea of myself being in anything sexual.

I use the label sex repulsed because it’s how I feel a majority of the time, it’s not always to the extent of it feeling like bugs crawling in my skin, but it makes me uncomfortable??? God it’s so weird

I guess I’m just asking if I’m the only one like this

[blackkittiesinabox]

i love labels, because labels are real

they dont change, they dont waver, and when they do its rather simple, its an evolution, or a second meaning, not making the original less valid

but ive found we talk too much about labels

and somehow that always upsets people

its always "why are lgbt labels so complicated" or "why do you know such weird labels" or "why does "mental health label" sound so "insert demonization of label"" and its just like

why do i repeat this mistake, its such a silly one to make

why do i talk so much about labels

ive ruined friendships over labels

then i remember

its the

AUTISM

label special interest go brrr

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Hey actually, let’s go back a reblog and talk about “queer,” because “queer” definitely does tell you something if you’re paying attention.

Queer can mean many things, but there are two primary definitions of which I am aware. One is the more modern definition, which is, “I don’t fit well into any traditional category, box, or label; or, the ones that I know about don’t feel right to me.” And that’s fine! It tells me that you’re probably not straight and probably not gay/lesbian, maybe you’ve got some gender stuff going on, who knows. Maybe you’re a diehard gay man who just found out the love of his life is actually a woman, but sex with any other woman is a viscerally disgusting idea. Maybe you feel more male on weekends than on weekdays. It tells me that calling you allosexual because I see you kissing someone or enby because you look androgynous is assumptionist. That’s a lot of information!

The second definition--the one I grew up with, and the reason I personally identify as queer--is a really important one: “queer” in this sense means, “I am part of the LGBTQIA+ family, but I am not ready to publicly identify how.” And this definition requires a lot of good faith on the part of the community, but it’s an important one to have in the room. Because not everyone is willing to take on the immense complications of publicly identifying as a given label, but it’s simultaneously important to let those people know that they are safe and welcomed even if all their beards are still intact.

In both cases, the common thread is, “While it’s not correct to label me right now, I am ready and willing to identify as part of the larger LGBTQIA+ family.” And that’s a lot of information.

I love vague labels that make people go "but that's confusing" or "but that could mean anything" Good. Keep guessing lol

[buddieinmybeddie]

LGBTQ+ folk what was your gender/sexuality pipeline?

[mr-weirdo-mcgee]

[oleandro-drag]

saint sebastian tended by saint irene but they're both drag artists

felt like this might be something this site would enjoy

on stage: oleandro & delfi oraakel, photographer: peroksiid (on ig as oleandro_drag, delfi_oraakel and peroksiid)

[anarcho-catboyism]

[rocksandaces]

Repeat after me:

Labels are not rules

Labels are not promises

Labels are not fixed

Labels are not necassary

Labels were created to be helpful, if they are not, you can get rid of them and do what you want

[uncanny-tranny]

Once you stop thinking about queer people's labels as strict indications of what's in their pants and who they do/don't bed and instead view queer people's labels as how they interact with the world, you'll find that you'll get along with queer people better and treat them better, I think.

[errrr-vent-blog]

"wait but how can that work ?" instead of asking how their queer identity works, and how can it be valid, maybe ask them their experiences. ask how it feels to themself being a mspec mono, or lesboy, or turigirl, or whatever. instead of getting angry at queer identities which dont fit your standard, just perhaps let it go and ask them as a person what their identity means to them. stop policing identities and open up your mind a little.

[elysianmadness]

"Lesbian means exclusive attraction to women!"

"No, it means non-men exclusively attracted to non-men!"

"It actually means queer attraction to women!"

"Lesbian means women and nonbinary people being exclusively attracted to other women and nonbinary people!"

Lesbian is a multifaceted label that can describe many different experiences. There is no one perfect definition of lesbian that will encompass the entire diverse experiences that lesbians can have.

I'm personally a genderqueer woman who's exclusively attracted to other women, but the lesbian next to me might be a transmasc lesbian who loves all genders except for men. And the lesbian next to them might be a bigender lesbian who's both a girl and a boy, who's exclusively attracted to women. Our experiences can all be described by the term lesbian if that's how we wish to describe it, but we might define it differently based on our own experiences. And guess what?

None of our definitions are wrong, but none of our definitions will encompass every other lesbian's experiences. A word can have multiple definitions without any of the definitions being wrong. And those definitions can be very vague or very specific. Labels are made to fit us- we aren't made to fit labels.

People who may have a different experience with the lesbian label are not your enemies. People in lesbian spaces who aren't exactly like you are not your enemies. The problem comes when you try to force one singular definition on every single lesbian. THAT is harmful. Sending death threats to other lesbians because they don't have the same experience as you is harmful. Not another lesbian having a different experience from you.

[prolibytherium]

Just in general I think trying to look to pre-late modern period history for validation of LGBT+ identities is an absolutely useless venture. Every single underlying human experience defined through the lens and framework of LGBT identity has always existed, but it's impossible to pin down Exactly who and what a figure might have been if they existed in this contemporary context and decided to self identify via these labels.

It's also a wildly reductive lens that flattens the complexity and variety of how sex and gender has been constructed across time in different cultures, how sexual norms have varied, etc. This is not a constructive approach to learn about history and you're never going to be able to fit historical figures neatly into little identity categories.

[privateolives]

This is probably because I grew up watching 24/7 animal planet, but what finally made the allo/aplatonic thing click for me were the nature's of big cats.

Lions are powerful, regal creatures who are uniquely adapted to pack life. They need these connections to live a healthy life; A lonely lion is a miserable creature indeed.

Jaguars are solitary, beautiful creatures who live happily solitary. They prowl their lush world with self-sufficient majesty. A jaguar is not lonely without a pack. In fact, forcing jaguars to share space with others they do not enjoy is just as damaging as forcing a lion to live alone.

A lion may choose to head out on it's own for the most part, but in the end must return to the pack to thrive. A jaguar can choose to trust and enjoy the company of others, but they never feel the need to form a pack.

Is a jaguar selfish for this? A psychopath, a narcissist or any other such horrid assumptions? Is it a less moral creature than a lion, who seeks others like it to thrive?

Is a lion pathetic, or needy, or selfish for wanting community? For requiring contact with others like they require water? For their inherent need to string complicated webs of relationships that may seem silly or dramatic to others?

Of course not. These are ridiculous questions to even ask.

They are simply lions and jaguars.

In fact, is a jaguar that chooses to spend time with you not as magical as a lion's love? For a creature that needs no bond to thrive to still enjoy your presence enough to share it a time? Is a lion who can prowl the night alone not impressive in its strength and resilience? Is it not awe-inspiring in its ability to conquer a life it was never wired for and reign still?

Are they not both beautiful and awe-inspiring in their own ways, without being wrong?

Alloplatonics. Aplatonics. Are we not both special and beautiful in both our bonds and self-confident happiness equal, in each our ways? Is there not unique beauty in lifelong bonded packs and magical encounters that need no perpetuity to carry life forward?

Are we not but lions and jaguars? Neither wrong, neither selfish, but just different and beautiful creatures in each our ways?

That's how I've come to see it, anyway.

[lesboytism]

ᜊ( ' ⩊ '𖦹)ᜊ BI-LESBOY

a term for those who identify as both a bi-lesbian and lesboy!! flag made by me :3 the symbol is from @/bi-lesbian mspec lesbian flags!!

p.s. i don't know if the term bi-lesboy already exists so i'm not claiming to have coined the term !!

[toxic-codependent-yuri]

I wish everybody who thinks themself righteous enough to police other people's orientations and gender identity a very Grow Up It's Not 2016