#lgtq history

[diana9241livejournalcom]

I almost finish Marie Antoniette, the new serie by Canal+.

It's not perfect, basically it's like "Versailles", with the same merits and the same defects, but something is really correct.

Now, for everyone who only saw Coppola's film: Louis XVIII, stiled Count of Provence since his birth, and his wife Marie Josephine de Savoie NEVER had a son. The duke of Angoulême was his brother's son, Charles of Artois later Charles X. Coppola decide to switch the couple but IRL Artois had 3 children, the forth was not his but from his wife's lover.

It was suggested that he was impotent, that he found his wife repulsive and that he was sterile. It seems that Marie Josephine had a miscarriage but it was never rooved 'cause she often faked a pregnancy. It was later suggested that he was gay and he couldn't have sex with his wife, and any other women who claimed to be his mistress. Zoe Talon, the last "mistress" wrote in her memoirs that the king loved inhaled snuff from her breasts but nothing more. During the same years Louis XVII wrote "Adieu my dear son, tu es l'unique que j'aime " ( you are the only man that I love ) to Gaston de Levis, 39 years younger than him and the only Louis XVIII's favourite we know.

And... Marie Josephine was a closeted lesbian, she had two important relationship whit women, madame de Balbi who was his husband's allegendly mistress but she claimed that they never had intercourses; and madame de Gourbillon, whose letters from the countes were "stolen" during the Restauration.

So the serie shows the pair menthal synchronicity but physically... a disaster and this is ocrrect. Sadly we havent's enough hints to suggest they were a gay man married with a lesbian but it perfectley showed that he was phisically repulsed by her. And a fake pregnacy.

From the last episode, btw the french version is better 'cause the word used is "impotence" who can be use like a political impotence and a physical impotence too.

Btw2, I know, Jack Archer did a really good job but provence was very fat since his childhood, I know

Btw3, green was Artois's color, not Provence but they erased Artois and also green is a color associeted with envy

[elliss-stuff]

Get To Know Me.

Tagged by @amnesiaa-on-ice...thank you girl💕

Rules: Answer and tag nine people you want to get to know better and catch up with.

Fav Color: Blue and green and all the shades 🩵💙💚

Last song: Good luck, babe by Chappel Roan and Sad face baby by The Lathums.

Currently reading: a book about the Lgtq+ history 🏳️‍🌈

Currently watching: I finished Heartstopper last night so now I'm just waiting for new inspiration. Or watching that again.

Currently craving: tiramisù

Coffee or tea: coffee. Espresso or macchiato.

Hobby to try: nothing. Too lazy.

Current Au: Henry and Alex meet in the library and Henry is freezing and Alex gives him his hoodie. And then I have a lots suggested by @mylucayathoughts , but not much time.

I think I'm late on this. I'm not tagging anyone but please if you wanna join, let's go💕💕💕

[outletdesired]

Jews accept and have female Rabbis, a vibrant LGBTQ community. Allow Palestinians rights to hold office including there government.

Palestinians destroy Jewish holy sites and archeological sites. Rewrite history and call for the death of Jews.

So your statement above is Ironic coming from Palestinians and Muslims who were the original invaders of Jewish land and built upon Jewish Holy Sites. People have built their entire believe system on killing and destruction and war of anyone built themselves. People so intolerant that they kill cartoonish. Call for “religious “ killings of anyone they do not and cannot listen too. Allow for the killing of LGTQ lives, children and daughters and women who do not live by their rules. Who is intolerant here? Who has really built a world around hate and evil and intolerance?

Israeli society is uniting around the simple and EVIL desire to starve every man, woman and child in Gaza.

[oupacademic]

Part of supporting any community involves observing their history and recognizing the contributions they have made to our society. For Pride Month this year we are celebrating those who have agitated, organized, and advocated on behalf of the disempowered.

Find out more and explore our collection of resources on counselling and supporting the LGBT community.

Graphic made by Sarah Butcher for Oxford University Press

[myhumanweakness]

Destiel/Cockles analysis s/p 15x18

Okay, so... This is gonna be a mishmash of thoughts, but if you stick with me maybe you’ll get what I’m saying. 

I’ve been seeing a lot of shit condemning Jensen as a homophobe because of his previous actions/statements about Destiel and also (for some ungodly reason) because of his performance during the confession in 15x18. And I have this theory that I needed to get out because it’s been there for a while, and now is the perfect time to explain it. 

This show started out in 2005 as a show about two manly, Midwestern men that  got pulled into a life of hunting the Earth’s worst creatures, tapping ass, and drinking beers (while also giving you a play-by-play on how to repress emotions), and there was also A LOT of love buried in the plot. A lot. 

The world was a completely different place in 2005. The own creator of the show didn’t expect the show to go past 5 seasons, so when the longevity came they were forced to grow. We watched this show go through a very human process/experience of growth and acceptance and evolution, and we got to grow along side it. Was it always a neat, beautiful process? Hell no. There were a lot of potholes along the way. But, growth isn’t linear. The point is that they (the writers, producers, actors, etc.) kept pushing themselves to grow year after year. 

So now, back to Jensen. Jensen has shown this fandom time and time again not only how grateful he is that we adore him and helped him to cultivate a life beyond what he has dreamed of but also that he is attentive and considerate to our feelings/thoughts. Has he disagreed with us at times? Hell yes he has. Has be bluntly stated that “Destiel doesn’t exist.” Hell yes he has. And it’s been hurtful and frustrating and invalidating. But, take a step back for a moment. 

Jensen is so connected to Dean. His friends and even his own wife has stated that he sometimes forgets that “he’s not Dean.” Dean has informed so much of who Jensen is for the last 15 years. And Jensen has admittedly seen a lot of himself in Dean. So who was Dean at the beginning of this show? Dean was the guy who made gay jokes, slept with plethoras of woman to fill a void (and also for pleasure), was so out of touch with his feelings because he was too busy being the person his father wanted/needed him to be, and had a very clear idea of what it meant to be a man. That’s the brain Jensen lived in for years while playing Dean. And honestly, it’s been speculated and discussed here, that Jensen’s brain might not have been too far off from that mindset outside of Dean. 

But just as we watched the show grow, I truly believe we watched Jensen grow. And we all know Danneel is a big part of that because she is wildly herself and big and fierce, especially about the things she believes in and loves, and she is open-minded and just pushes people to grow. And he has said those things about her. But I also think that a lot of Jensen’s growth came from Misha because as much as Danneel has influenced him over the years, I firmly believe Jensen needed to see/meet/form a relationship with someone like Misha in order to truly/permanently break down those walls about what a man should/could be. 

Cockles fans have long dissected and held up microscopes to Jensen and Misha’s relationship, so much so that there are pages and pages of theories about how their love bloomed, their break ups, their tender moments, and the growth of their relationship in general. But one thing that I think Jensen frequently struggled with is this idea that he needed to keep Dean true to who he is as a person, and that any growth and evolution in Jensen’s life (ie his relationship with Misha) couldn’t influence that. All of those moments he was denouncing Destiel seemed to be out of a struggle to keep those two people separate- Jensen vs Dean. Because in Jensen’s head, Dean was still this super straight, rough and tough, Midwestern monster hunter. 

But over the years, the Destiel fandom was comforted by Misha’s outspoken love, admiration, and agreement. Misha truly championed this fandom with reckless abandon. But while Misha was comfortable (to a degree) with himself and his relationship with Jensen, we really watched Jensen struggle. We watched Jensen grow. 

So, fast forward to the last couple of years. Destiel is subtextually canon- the writers have confirmed this at this point. Jensen is less negative about Destiel at panels insofar as to talk about their “break ups” and “domestic disputes” and “relationship” with a validating tone. Is he fervently talking about Destiel safe words and bondage and having sex/making out? No. But that’s not who Jensen is. He’s much more conservative with his emotions than Misha... at least publicly. 

This fandom has watched Jensen grow, not only in his dealings with/approach to Cockles but also with Destiel. So, while Jensen has long been adamant that Dean is not bisexual and couldn’t end up with Cas, I think there was potentially a moment where Misha (and potentially Danneel) were like, “Well, why can’t Dean be bi? Why can’t he finally realize that about himself after years of breaking down barriers and fears and conditioned notions? You did.” 

What came first, Cockles or Destiel? That’s been the debate right? The chicken or the egg? I truly think without Cockles coming first, we would have never been able to have Destiel. In fact, in my head, I can make the argument that without Jensen growing and going through the process of falling in love with Misha, Destiel would have never become canon. Jensen needed to first separate himself from Dean (which we are all privy to), grow and fall in love [again] as Jensen, and then give Dean the permission to grow and fall in love too. 

As we have seen from this week’s episode, Destiel has been there for years. YEARS. But Dean has always had to deal with two struggles: accepting himself and Jensen accepting him. We heard Jensen say at a panel that when he read the script for the final episode, he had a hard time coming to terms with what happened. People have long speculated that was referring to Destiel. Now, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t (I guess we’ll find out in two weeks), but it would make a lot of sense if it was. 

As everyone (the writers, actors, fans, etc.) has validated and acknowledged Destiel and particularly Dean’s love for Cas, Jensen has continued to struggle with it. But I don’t think it’s because Jensen is homophobic or anything like some people are saying. I think it’s because Jensen has worked tirelessly to separate the romantic lives of himself and Dean. Jensen convinced himself that Dean loving Cas and them having a relationship would be out of character, when in reality it followed this pattern of growth that both the show and bi (& LGTQ+) men/individuals around the world followed. Because Jensen is so connected to Dean, he can’t have 2020 vision until it’s hindsight because as Dean was coming out to himself and accepting himself, Jensen was accepting Dean simultaneously. It’s actually a beautiful thing. And it doesn’t make Jensen homophobic... it makes Jensen human. 

As many LGBTQ+ people will tell you, the path to realization and acceptance is fraught with struggle (internal and external) and doubt and denial and even self-hatred. There are no two characters that embody that more than Cas and Dean. So, I think that once Jensen realized that he went through a similar process as Dean it wasn’t that crazy anymore that Dean was in love with Cas. And Jensen loving Misha didn’t force Dean to love Cas- Jensen didn’t make Dean bi- Jensen loving Misha gave Dean the permission to love Cas and become one of the most human characters (especially male characters) to ever exist because we got to watch Dean find love and accept love through repression, struggle, self realization, and self acceptance. 

And for that, Jensen Ackles will go down in history as one of the best actors of this generation. Because he truly brought life to Dean Winchester.

Thank you for attending my TedTalk. I wanted to be much more thorough with this and include gifs and video evidence, but this is already lengthy and I doubt anyone even made it to the end. 

[stardust-wanderlust]

I liked your post comparing army vs shawol. Kinda don't agree but I think it's good to talk abt things fandoms have in common. I noticed you said we should be able to discuss people's humanity. Why would talking about sbd's orientation count under that? Maybe because I'm an lgbtqia+ person I'm more sensitive to this. It seems like a lot of cis het blogs have no prob discussing orientation as if this info was owed to them

Hello!

No information about someone's personal life is ever owed to anybody not directly connected to that individual.

That being said, who someone is sexually and/or romantically attracted to is part of being human.

And as humans, we all make observational judgements regarding this aspect of each other's humanity. When you see a man and woman on the street holding hands, you make a judgement that they are together. When you see two women pick up a child at school, you make a judgement that they are together. When you see two men talking intimately at a coffee shop, you make a judgement that they are together.

These judgements are not inherently judgemental. They are simply part of our nature to link people together.

I recognize that history has shown that such conversations surrounding these observational judgements have not always been kind to the LGTQ+ members of society. But part of progress is bringing these conversations onto the same level as conversations about straight people. You made an observational judgement that I am a cis het blog. I made an observational judgement that Taemin may not be straight.

You are not entitled to know my orientation any more than I am entitled to know Taemin's. But we can still discuss them.

It is why people get so pissed off at the phrase "don't assume their sexuality". Because people are always assuming others sexuality, it has just historically been assumed to be straight. Progress is people no longer assuming straight as the default.

[relationshipsandpolitics]

I suppose it’s worthwhile to share who I’m supporting in the upcoming Democratic Primary for President. After all, what better way to make people who mostly agree with me to suddenly hate me than to stan for some deeply flawed elected official or deeply flawed Andrew Yang?

But before I get into narrowing down the field, I want to briefly mention something I’m going to talk about in more depth later: electability.  It’s not entirely unimportant to use this unquantifiable metric when picking a candidate.  I would just caution against it, and I’m not going to use it in mine.  Simply put, I think this election is a referendum on Trump, and there will be enough wiggle room in the electorate to support a candidate who objectively would do worse against Trump and win than the best candidate. Candidate A might beat him by 10 points, but Candidate Z will still beat him and carry the down-ticket races, too. You might as well just vote for the candidate you believe in.  A crazy concept, I know.

For the record, I’d willingly vote for any Democratic candidate over Donald Trump.  I just want to get that out of the way.  People feel the need to caveat their choice in this way, as though anyone is really arguing otherwise.   There is some truth that in 2016, Bernie voters switched to Trump at rates that helped tip the election to the Republican.  But it’s also true that more Hillary Clinton voters in 2008 switched to McCain than Bernie voters switched to Trump in 2016.  The fact is it is incredibly common for supporters of a primary candidate to wind up voting for the opposition party’s nominee. These are often called swing voters or independents.  They sometimes gravitate to a candidate simply because of that candidate and not because of party or policy.   We need to stop with this type of criticism of supporters who don’t support your preferred candidate.

Personally, I’m still voting Democrat no matter who is the nominee. But I’d be very unhappy to vote for a lot of these candidates.  

Here is the list of current candidates in an order that means nothing, but one might think has a hidden meaning:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Beto O’ Rourke, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Steve Bullock, Michael Bennet, Joe Sestak, Wayne Messam, John Delaney, Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg

Let’s begin by just lopping off a bunch of these names who even I have barely heard of and have less than zero chance of being the nominee.  Keep in mind that some candidates I’m keeping on, I only do so because I wish to make fun of them.  Otherwise they would fully belong in this category of early dismissals. Here’s the new list:

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Beto O’ Rourke, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg

 That was fun.  Ok, let’s get into it.  When judging who my savior will be, I consider a multitude of categories.  But the first category I consider is one that won’t personally affect me at all.  I want to know if any of the candidates’ position will grossly discriminate against traditionally-disadvantaged groups.  As a straight white male, I have the benefit of not being directly impacted by even the worst Republican social policies.  All I really need to care about is taxes and getting more vacation. That’s my privilege.  But it’s also what’s so fucked up about Americans as a people.  We are entirely out for ourselves, and this is most evident in how we vote.  We need to look out for everyone, especially groups that regularly see their most basic rights challenged.  I think this is the first bar any candidate must overcome.

So any candidate that supports restricting women’s reproductive rights, supports policies that make it easier to be fired for being LGTQ, or supports banning Muslims from entering this country is gone.  Now, most of the candidates have said some questionable thins in the past.  Bernie Sanders wrote a weird column about sexual assault, Joe Biden pushed a shitty crime bill that disproportionately hurt African-Americans and was down with segregated busing, and I’m pretty sure Marianne Williamson’s only black friend is Oprah (but she’ll definitely mention it all the time).  But when it comes to actual policy, I honestly don’t believe any of the candidates running will actively seek to harm minority groups. Except Tulsi Gabbard, who has a history of saying some anti-gay shit.  I’m not trying to wade into this whole Hillary Clinton/Russia/Third-Party run controversy involving Gabbard, so I’m going to cut her off now because I don’t think she has the backs of the LGBTQ community, but I really don’t want to write about her.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Beto O’ Rourke,  Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, Tom Steyer, Andre Yang, Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg

The next crucial category is competence.  Do these candidates have the basic competence and intelligence needed to be president? It doesn’t matter if they have strong policy proposals or are skilled orators. Can they do the job?  As we can see with Trump, a complete lack of experience as a legislator, coupled with a complete lack of intelligence and basic human decency make for a bad time.  In fact, never holding elected office alone is a disqualifier for me and it should be for everyone. Based on these criteria, the following candidates get the axe:

Andrew Yang - Yang is the type of candidate who randomly makes news for a common-sense plan and gets you thinking that maybe this outsider is what we need.  Then you learn he’s a Silicon Valley tech bro supported by other tech bros and pseudo-libertarian types and he never held public office but now thinks he can be president. That is the most damning critique.  This man knows literally nothing about government and how to govern/legislate. Instead of running for city council or the school board like a normal person, he decides to run for fucking president like an ego-maniacal psycho.   In other words, fuck Andrew Yang and his supporters.  Here’s a good article on why he sucks.   And here’s another.

Marianne Williamson – Candidate moonbeam had her moment in the sun during one debate where she had a couple decent soundbites.  She’s also batshit crazy, believes in anti-vax and anti-science ideas, and is friends with similarly-out of touch rich celebrities and SoCal types.  Never trust anyone who self-identifies and makes a living as a spiritual guru. Some of the worst people in the world are rich white women from Los Angeles who are really into spirituality and New Age medicines. They are the type of liberals who post online about how much they support gay people and the environment, but god forbid they want to put affordable housing in their neighborhood. Every positive thing they do for society is clouded in narcissism.  It’s an attempt to absolve themselves of their wealth with vacuous good deeds that don’t require any actual sacrifice.  People like Williamson protest polluting the oceans because they enjoy their Malibu beaches, and then happily get in their Range Rover to go to the movies down the street.  Williamson simply adds a layer of bullshit with her spiritualism.  If having a personal shaman is a status symbol; being the personal shaman to Oprah is the ultimate status symbol.  Like Yang, Williamson is an egomaniac as only someone from California can be, and she thinks the presidency is her God-given right. Fuck having to actually learn about public service by serving your town first when you can name drop Oprah and Gwyneth and immediately raise enough money to get a national audience to spew your garbage.

Tom Steyer - I could go on about how out of touch his policies are, but no one should be forced to read more than two sentences about this guy.  He is a hedge fund billionaire who doesn’t want everyone to have health insurance and thinks being rich makes him qualified to be president.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, Julian Castro, Beto O’ Rourke, TKamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar,  John Delaney, Pete Buttigieg

Alright, let’s pause and congratulate ourselves for easily dismissing half the field. Yay for us!  This will mark the end of part 1, aka Super Fun Party Time #1.   Part 2 will be up shortly, I hope, as we start discussing the serious contenders.  Remember, my opinion matters more than anyone else’s so it’s extremely important you read this and ultimately vote the way I want you to vote.  

[theultravioletalliance]

Myths About Bisexuality

Let’s get it all out there on the table: there are a ton of hurtful myths out there about bisexual people and none of them are our fault. In fact, many biphobic stereotypes are actually widely perpetuated inside the LGBTQ+ community. No matter how accepting we pretend to be, there are always lgtq+ biphobes, lgbq+ transphobes, lgbtq+ acephobes, and other forms of discrimination (racism/sexism/ableism/xenophobia/etc.) within our own ranks. It’s not a perfect community because people aren’t perfect. But as a group that claims to be open and accepting of all queer people, we should definitely be holding ourselves to a higher standard than most.

Below are just some of the hurtful myths that bi people face:

Myth: Bisexuality isn’t real/valid. - Fact: it is valid and it always has been! You’re just confused because you’re not bi and therefore you don’t feel the need to understand it.

Myth: Bi people are cheaters - Fact: Bisexual people are just as likely to desire monogamy as anyone else. Having the potential to be attracted to a larger group of people than most does not mean you want or need to be with more than one person at a time. Many bisexual people--the author of this post included!--desire closed, committed relationships with one other person and no one else. The idea that bisexuality changes your desire for monogamy (or polyamory or whatever else!) stems directly and completely from biphobia.

Myth: Bi people can’t be monogamous because they need to have at least one male and one female partner at all times in order to feel whole - Fact: Bisexuality is not--nor has it ever been--inherently duogamous. Bi people do not need a male partner and a female partner in order to feel complete. Also, this is a pretty transphobic look at bisexuality, which brings us to our next myth…

Myth: Bisexuality is transphobic - Fact: bisexuality--which can only be defined by people who identify as bisexual--has been inclusive of all genders the entire time! It is literally stated in the Bisexual Manifesto of 1990 that bisexuality is not “binary or duogamous in nature”. Plainly put, bisexuality doesn’t mean two genders! And only transphobes think that being attracted to men and women would somehow not include our trans brothers, sisters, and siblings! Nonbinary people are not only included in the spectrum of genders that bisexual people are attracted to, but many nonbinary people--the author of this post included--actually identify as bisexual! Not pansexual, not polysexual or omnisexual or anything else--bisexual.

Myth: Bi people are just indecisive! They all pick a side eventually. - Fact: Bisexuality is a whole, real, fluid sexuality that has nothing to do with “sides”. Do a lot of bi people eventually find someone they want to settle down with? Yes! Does that equal picking a side? Not even close! Being bisexual means you’ll be bisexual before, during, and after every relationship in your life because it’s a part of who you are! The only reason people say this is because of biphobia and the prevailing idea that you have to see someone with two partners of different genders simultaneously to think they are bisexual and not straight or gay.

Myth: bi people are slutty/dirty - Fact: it’s this kind of narrow-minded, slut-shaming attitude that contributes to bisexual people having some of the highest rates of depression of anyone inside or outside the community! You only need to think critically for two seconds to see that this toxic mindset literally doesn’t make sense. So...you think straight women are only sluts if they sleep around, but bi women are sluts regardless of how they behave? What about polysexual people who are saving their first time for the right person? What about omniromantic asexuals who never want to be intimate with someone? What about panromantic demisexuals who have only had a small number of partners? Are they sluts too? Does that make sense to you? Of course not. Because your sexuality doesn’t determine your behavior. (And even if it did, calling people “slutty” or dirty for having sex is disgusting and reductive and incredibly rude. Keep that backwards talk out of our spaces.)

Myth: Bi people don’t need their own space in the LGBTQIA+ community - Fact: we do! Bi people are regularly pushed out of other queer spaces for not being seen as “queer enough” and pushed out of straight spaces for not being straight. And since we face some of the highest levels of depression, sexual assault, and domestic violence in the community on top of everything else, we need a space of our own to get real about those issues without being talked over by biphobes.

Myth: I’m not biphobic/that biphobic--I’m gay/lesbian/trans/queer/ace/etc.! - Fact: being in the LGBTQIA+ community doesn’t make you immune to biphobia! In fact, some of the most hurtful stereotypes about bisexuality are perpetuated within the community! Gay men and lesbians are the first to shut bi people out of queer spaces and call us cheaters and posers for not being exclusively attracted to one gender.

Myth: Well it’s not actually biphobic to… - I’m gonna stop you right there. Bi people are the only ones who get to decide what is and isn’t biphobic, okay? Just like trans people are the only ones who get to define transphobia, lesbians are the only ones who get to define lesbophobia, and asexual people are the only ones who can define acephobia. If it’s not your community being attacked, you don’t have the power to validate or invalidate the pain they feel. When a bi person tells you your behavior is biphobic, LISTEN. We know our own pain better than you do.

Myth: Bi people are “half gay/half straight” - nope! Bisexuality is its own sexuality and comes with its own culture, history, and set of challenges! To say that bi people are half gay and half straight is to ignore all of that in order to put us into a box we didn’t ask for. Not only are many bi people not split 50/50 on gender preference, but it isn’t really your business to ask anyway!

Myth: It’s easier for bi people than it is for gay people because they can choose to be straight. Fact: bisexual people don’t choose to be anything! Even in m/f relationships, bi people face a ton of stigma from, once again, inside and outside the LGBTQIA+ community. Regardless of relationship status, bisexual people still face homophobia, biphobia, and constant erasure. There is no cheat code for bisexual people, which is definitely why we’re the most closeted group in the LGBTQIA+ community.

Friendly reminder that bisexual people are real people and that we deserve to control our own narratives without biphobes entering our spaces to spread hateful lies about a group of people they clearly want nothing to do with. Keep that in mind when considering commenting on this post.

Stay safe and Happy Pride!

-Rev. Gaia

[falconfriend]

My blog strives to be accessible to kids 10 and younger so I do my very best to avoid profanity, and all things like that, so this post exists with many, MANY thanks to @skylors-gf and an understanding of how much I love your post, but apologies that I haven’t reblogged it. It isn’t an attempt at translating or representing skylors-gf’s post. 

(Are there, somewhere, very young kids without tumblr accounts accessing my blog for its Ninjago content? I don’t know, man, but maybe. Will those kids read and understand this post? I don’t know, but maybe. Maybe parents will. I can dream. More importantly, maybe you will, kids age 12-17, adults who don’t have many LGBTQ+ friends, anyone of any age feeling like you’re being hurt and targeted by LGTQ+ fans and creators.)

Regarding LGBTQ+ headcanons (and those posts that are blowing up right now):

Hey, kids. There needs to be an understanding of history when it comes to LGBTQ+ headcanons. I want you to know that when someone says “lol, people shipping Cole with girls, he’s obviously gay,” they don’t actually mean “stop shipping that.” What they mean is that this is their own in-joke about their own headcanon, one you don’t need to have.

I want you to know that “down with cis” is a joke that was started by a cis person selling a fake story. They said a bunch of people wearing shirts or whatever that said “down with cis” beat them up on a bus, essentially - it was fear mongering to make it clear that the trans agenda is solely to oppress cis people. So “down with cis,” as a joke, is born of people laughing at the concept of their ability to oppress cis people. The point isn’t hate. The point is mocking a fake fear-mongering story someone made and making it clear it’s ludicrous. 

And when people do say “actually, screw straight people, screw cis people,” etc? That’s exhaustion, kids. That’s not a bunch of gay and trans and assorted other LGBTQ+ people hating you for existing, or hating anything fundamental about you as a person. It is, after years and years of people around them going “you hate us, you’re dangerous to us, you’re perverted, we hate you, you want to hurt us, you want to hurt our children,” some of us going “you know what? sure. we hate you, lol, die mad about it.” But is it about you, sixteen year old child shipping Kai with her original self-insert ninja of parakeets? No. 

(I don’t know if there’s an actual OC ninja of parakeets somewhere. I was going for something vague.)

For people who want context for what’s going on but in as extremely G-rated a format as possible, skylors-gf’s post that I gave kudos to at the beginning said basically “I am ignoring you and letting you have fun. It’s hard to when you flood the character tags with posts about how straight ships are oppressed and we hate you and we don’t let you have fun, or come to my askbox asking for proof when I make a post for me and myself and my headcanons that is ‘lol why would you ship them with a person of another gender they’re gay,’ I’m trying hard to ignore you trust me but you make me prove to you at every second that I have a right to also have opinions and fun.” This was a response post to a swelling of posts in the fandom accusing LGBTQ+ people of not “ignoring people who ship straight ships, and letting them have fun.” 

I don’t speak for skylors-gf, and haven’t run this post by them. It’s not an attempt at translation and my transcription should probably be taken with a grain of salt, but like, again, it’s great context to have.

It’s me trying to crouch down and educate some people who maybe genuinely haven’t interacted with LGBTQ+ adults much and don’t know what the whole kerfuffle is about, so that they’ll stop harassing LGBTQ+ fans about it.

[atlanticcanada]

Greg Smith talks about making LGBTQ+ history at Brier

Newfoundland and Labrador skip Greg Smith spoke about making history at the Brier last week. He and Ontario’s John Epping were the first two open members of the LGTQ+ community to play each other in a Brier match.

The post Greg Smith talks about making LGBTQ+ history at Brier appeared first on ntv.ca.

from ntv.ca https://ift.tt/3eA7CHz

[3countylaugh]

Plus the pansexuals being deemed more worth than bisexual when they literally mean the same thing if anyone had bothered to understand that. (See the 90's bisexual manifesto children, bi's were acknowledging and loving non binary and trans people before it was cool. Nice of some of the rest of the LGTQ rainbow to catch up.) Bisexual meaning hot for both my gender and other genders, that kind of duality.

Although I welcome my pansexual siblings to go learn our shared history and maybe help us old school bi's make bisexual not a hated word/ concept.

Didn't realize how angry it still makes me to once again be accepted by no one if I won't swing to their pointless extremes. Bi forever baby.

Being bisexual is weird because like I don’t know about other bisexuals, but bi-erasure is so strong that even I think I’m faking it sometimes?? like one day I’ll wake up and be like “I’m obviously living a lie I’m a giant homosexual??” but then a second later I’ll be like “Am I just a straight person lying to myself???” Its like I forget my own orientation exists

[scripthistory]

my character is a gay teenager in the late 90s, and he lives in a small town. can you tell me anything about how he would be treated by the general populace, like the general attitude? thanks :)

This depends on where this teenager lives. Overall, gay people werepunished for the AIDS epidemic in the West in various ways in different countriesduring the 1980s, carrying on into the 1990s. (However, some unexpected eventscame as a result of the epidemic. For example, Denmark and Sweden legalisedsame sex domestic partnership in 1989 because some activists argued that allowing homosexualindividuals to marry would reduce the spread of the virus.) [1] Since smalltowns are, in general, more conservativethan bigger cities, it is likely that the people who lived there would have seen especiallygay men in a very negative light. There were many misconceptions about how AIDS would spread and it’s also important to note that before cases of heterosexualpeople being diagnosed in the USA, it was called gay-related immune deficiency (GRID). AIDS washeavily stigmatised and gay men were highly associated with AIDS. 

(Not the onlyones who suffered, of course. It is a simplification to put the focus on gaymen but for the small town experience, gay men were generally in the spotlightwhile other parts of the LGBTQ community were more invisible. Anyone who wasopenly part of the community, however, would be stigmatised.

Do also note that I use the shorter abbreviation because in the historical context, LGB, with T since the 80s and Q since mind 90s, would have been in use. In every other circumstance I would use the longer, contemporary version.)

The above is the historyof the Western world, which is important to keep in mind. People in other partsof the world died long before the epidemic of the 1980s took place in USA andEurope and continue to be at risk even now. Things that are alsoimportant to keep in mind are general differences between USA and Europe. Dependingon the country in Europe, education about sex and sexuality in the late 1990swould be aimed towards protection rather than abstention. [2] It’s alsoimportant to note how different European countries handled the AIDS epidemic;Great Britain, for example, passed something called “Clause 28” whichprohibited any positive portrayal of gay or lesbian people to be taught inschools. [3]

Since your characterlives in a small town, it’s likely that the people there don’t often personallyinteract with gay or lesbian people. It might be a more conservative and/orstrongly religious area.

thosewith negative attitudes are… 4) less likely to have had personal contact withgay men or lesbians; 5) likely to be older and less well-educated; 6) morelikely to have resided in areas where negative attitudes represent the norm(e.g., rural areas; the Midwestern and Southern United States); and 7) morelikely to be strongly religious and to subscribe to a conservative religiousideology (Herek, 1984a). [4]

The historical context,thus, may be something like the following; there would be predominantlynegative attitudes towards gay and lesbian people because of it being a smalltown with little contact with the LGBTQ-community. The character would be awareof AIDS and the stigma surrounding it – they would have grown up hearing thehorror stories and learning how ostracised and stigmatised gay people were. Thecharacter would (likely) have come in contact with anything LGBTQ mainly through harmfulportrayals on TV, where LGBTQ people were either evil, victims who died terribledeaths, or were the butt of the joke. Having access to resources was limitedbecause, back then, Internet was not yet in every home to the same extent as itis today, or at all depending on where you lived and your socioeconomicstatus. In a small town, creating or finding a LGBTQ-community may also be difficult. In other words, the character is not unlikely to be isolated if they are not out and if they are out, they are likely to face a lot of prejudges.

Oncethey come out, lesbians and gay men risk rejection by others, discrimination,and even violence, all experiences with psychological consequences that canendure long after their immediate physical effects have dissipated. [5]

All in all, while it ispossible that your young, gay character would find someone else, the risk ofisolation from the LGBTQ-community would probably be rather high. If they wereto come out they are most likely to face discrimination and may risk violence. Either way, the risk of going through some kind of trauma is very high.

If you want more specific information, I would need a more exact location to work with. The above is a generalised outline of what life would be like for your character.

Good luck with your writing!

Signed, Captain.

[1] Anna Clark, Desire: A History of European Sexuality. (New York: Routledge, 2008) 216.

[2] Ibid., 218-219.

[3] Ibid., 215.

[4] Gregory M. Herek ,“Stigma, Prejudice, and Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men”, 25 feb 2017, http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/spssi_91_pre.PDF, 4.

[5] Ibid., 12.

[carooliinah]

They told us Sherlock was inlove. They said “love conquers all”. They tweeted pictures of elephants and quoted Oscar Wilde. They made a trailer that revolved around a love confession. They said it'd be groundbreaking, that it would be history making. They said it would be different. It's okay that two man chose their adaptation of the books to be about straight men and their adventures. What is not okay is that they gave us hope for years. That they kept the fire burning just because it was convenient despite knowing how much was at stake for some of us. I can't even imagine how the LGTQ+ community must be feeling.

[anewsbuddy]

'In Conversation With': Filmmaker Ryan White Documents LGTQ History With 'Visible: Out on Television'

‘In Conversation With’: Filmmaker Ryan White Documents LGTQ History With ‘Visible: Out on Television’

[ad_1]

The documentarian speaks with THR about the 100-plus interviews and countless hours of archival footage screenings that went into his Apple TV+ survey of LGBTQ representation in the media.

Welcome to In Conversation With, a podcast from The Hollywood Reporter produced in partnership with Apple TV+. Each week, hosts Rebecca Ford (awards editor) and Michael O’Connell (senior writer) sit…

[beastofhearts]

Im making this, as a way to remember my tags and stop miss-writing them. But if someone finds it useful to navigate around this madness, i guess its have a double use

Art Related Drawing - my drawings, sketchs, wherever else Art by others - as the name suggest Tutorial - almost always art related reference - to draw (or write?) Comic - long or short, they all go here (si, en singular) Quotes - bcs i love quotes Poems Text   -   literature, short or long go here Spanish Text - poems and otherwise, if spanish, go here

Sustantives go always in plural: Dogs - photos, information, all here EXCEPT art Cats Felines - everything, EXCEPT cats Animals Pets - mostly orientated to informational post Birds Buildings (statues)  Movies Photos Travels Subjects, however, go in singular Lgbt (Lgtq ) Flora Cosplay Fashion - armor, gloves, everything goes here History (Art History | Woman History) Religion Health (Mental Health | Sex Ed) Feminism (Abortion) Mithology (Norse |  Egiptian |  Greek | non-european ) Magic - photos, text, insp aesthetic - bcs i wrote this differently at least 5 times Inspiration - to feel better, to keep going, empowering or just a pat in the back ... Stuff Cosas para el rol (pbs | prompts | names | Opiniones| pictures) resources

I will keep adding as i keep remembering Move: Building to buildingS Move: Some “Movie”to “MovieS”

[grgedoors02142]

'Grey's Anatomy' Star Sara Ramirez Has Something To Say About Bi-Erasure

Sara Ramirez is speaking out about what she sees as bi-erasure in “When We Rise,” Dustin Lance Black’s new mini-series about the LGBT movement.

Ramirez took to Twitter earlier this week to share her thoughts on the exclusion of bisexual pioneers from the mini-series’ narrative, which premiered last month. She tweeted a quote card featuring the words of bisexual advocate and founder of the bisexual political action group BiPOL, Lani Ka’ahumanu. 

.@WhenWeRiseABC didn't include #BiHistory & our story needs to be told. #MustRead https://t.co/xaRVHOKrIZ @babn #LaniKaahumanu #bierasure http://pic.twitter.com/ALOFoywupE

— Sara Ramirez (@SaraRamirez) March 13, 2017

Ka’ahumanu’s words were included in a recent blog post by Martin Rawlings-Fein, which discussed the implication of the exclusion of bisexuals in “When We Rise.” 

“[T]he truth is that we have been telling our stories separately for years and being told to ‘shut up’ because nobody in the gay community wants to hear them,” he wrote. “Our stories are not convenient, they do not fit into the boxes in which others try to place them.” 

Black responded to Ramirez’s tweet, saying that bisexuals are included in his series, but they simply did not define themselves with such a label at the time. 

I admire you greatly @SaraRamirez, but this statement is not true. Real bisexual people & bi activists are portrayed in WhenWeRise. https://t.co/fUxlEkRxoM

— Dustin Lance Black (@DLanceBlack) March 14, 2017

@ellynruthstrom When did you start using the word bisexual?

— Dustin Lance Black (@DLanceBlack) March 15, 2017

@BiNetUSA The real bi people portrayed disagree that they are not bi. For them to put modern words to it in 1970 would be anachronistic

— Dustin Lance Black (@DLanceBlack) March 15, 2017

@rj4gui4r Agreed. Bisexuality is certainly worthy of its own history, narrative & a deeper dive. I hope filmmakers will tell that story.

— Dustin Lance Black (@DLanceBlack) March 15, 2017

See earlier tweets. I understand there are alternative facts out there that no real bi people & stories are in #WhenWeRise but that is false

— Dustin Lance Black (@DLanceBlack) March 15, 2017

@elielcruz The show is based on real, living people. If you do not like how they defined themselves back then, you can take it up with them.

— Dustin Lance Black (@DLanceBlack) March 15, 2017

As for Ramirez, she is ready to work with Black to help get bi stories told. 

Thank you @DLanceBlack I respect ur thoughts on this. I also respect our LGTQ Bi+ elders. I admire ur reaching out abt this in this manner.

— Sara Ramirez (@SaraRamirez) March 14, 2017

Perhaps we can set up a time to share our thoughts directly? I'm open to it. DM me if you are. Wishing you well @DLanceBlack

— Sara Ramirez (@SaraRamirez) March 14, 2017

@rj4gui4r @SaraRamirez Happy to help work on that solution.

— Dustin Lance Black (@DLanceBlack) March 15, 2017

Looking forward 2 you DM'ing me to start the conversation & working together on solutions 4 better bi rep in media @DLanceBlack

— Sara Ramirez (@SaraRamirez) March 15, 2017

The “Grey’s Anatomy” star came out as a queer bisexual woman last year at the True Colors Fund’s 40 to None Summit for homeless LGBT youth, and spoke about elevating the “complex narratives” of many in the LGBT community.  

“It made sense for me at this time as it was one piece of a larger context I was communicating,” she told HuffPost. “Our most marginalized youth touch on many intersections, and in describing the concept of inter sectionalities, I decided to describe the ones that exist in my own life. The days of pressuring our LGBTQ youth to conform to one homogenized way of presenting LGBTQ are over. We must acknowledge and maintain awareness around their complex narratives.”

A rep for Black was not immediately available to comment. 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from DIYS http://ift.tt/2mXsuxa