#like when they’re referring to lesbians or gay men and they say queer instead

[ryasanda]

i genuinely think we’ve lost the queer as a slur discourse.

im not saying i disagree with that stance, but i do feel like at this point, it’s more effective to point out instances when the use of it is deliberately obtuse, i.e. when it’s used to refer to people that vocally identify as a fixed label and no ‘nuance’ is necessary, and when the queerios insist on providing that ‘nuance’ anyway. i think that’s a more straightforward way of pointing out their hypocrisy and they look more stupid when they refuse to acknowledge sexualities that don’t require the use of an ‘umbrella term’ by their standards.

like basically, i don’t think that queer is ever going away. i think it’s better to insist people say the word lesbian when that’s what they actually mean, than to tirelessly argue with gendies/libfems that they shouldn’t use a certain word at all

[star-anise]

So what I’ve learned from the past couple months of being really loud about being a bi woman on Tumblr is: A lot of young/new LGBT+ people on this site do not understand that some of the stuff they’re saying comes across to other LGBT+ people as offensive, aggressive, or threatening. And when they actually find out the history and context, a lot of them go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry, I never meant to say that.”

Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like... oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”

So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it. 

That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and  unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender. 

When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.

And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.

But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and...” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.

But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”

And that? That gives me hope for the future.

[nightswithkookmin]

Saw some ppl on twt having an interesting thought/theory the other day. That different from other pairings within the group, Jikook is one of the (if not the only one) pairings who have not had been shown having deep/insightful conversations in official content, what we see is mostly them being playful and flirty with each other instead, and that maybe that’s why a lot of people in the fandom don’t take what they say about/to each other seriously, and/or always try to downplay when compared to other pairings (i.e when Jimin said he was with JK on his birthday last year, or that he likes to wake up and see JK). Thoughts on that? Ngl, it got me thinking if maybe it’s one of the reasons why whenever jikook are jikooking it’s almost radio silence among armys who usually would get super loud when it’s JM or JK with other members 🤔.

They don't take Jikook seriously because Jikook flirts a lot and are often playful with eachother on camera than the others???

That's a lie. That's Sanskrit for homophobia.

I can see the homophobia in their eyes

If two people are flirty with eachother that is reason enough to take them seriously- especially in Kpop where people use the cover of homoerotic fanservices to live out their gay fantasies.

At the very least, when they flirt with eachother- however way you wanna take it, fanservice or not- they are assuaging their own homosexual tendencies and desires. If they didn't have them they wouldn't be flirting- unprovoked.

Flirting is a sign of sexual attraction.

What am I missing??

When Jimin says he likes to wake up to see JK's face, yes that's him flirting with Jungkook in broad day HD- it's gay, it's nonplatonic and borderline outing.

He likes to rile Jungkook up. No two ways about that. Sometimes he likes to engage in a staredown with Jungkook till the other caves- it's called gay lust and it's valid. Lol

Also, I don't get it.

A.

Are they saying Jikook lacks depth in their dynamic or are they saying THEY don't see the depth in Jikook's dynamics?

If they can't see depth in their dynamics that's on them. Can't help them with that one. But I would have to disagree on that cos I see the depth in their dynamic more so than any I see in any ship in BTS.

B.

When they say Jikook rarely have deep insightful conversations on camera, what metric are they using to measure that said depth? What insight do they want? Chilee

It doesn't get deeper than Jimin telling jungook he drinks to self soothe because he feels lonely sometimes.

Or Jungkook saying Jimin told him he wanted to be with him (the team) for a very long time.

You hear Jimin say very often, 'I was telling Jungkook the other day....' 'I was with Jungkook when X happened to me' etc.

Their ability to be vulnerable with eachother in ways they are not with other members, to understand eachother's feelings without so many words, to experience a lot of highs and lows together and connect on that deeper level weighs more than anyone's opinion of them.

May be they should pay attention to the things they say about eachother- the conversations they reference and the nature of those conversations. I'm sorry but a picture perfect two seconds screen time of a contrived conversation between two members does not equate to or determine the depth of their relationship. Especially if such said members leave that depth on set never to pick it up or engage in it off camera- yea we see them. We know just about who goes out to nurture their relationship beyond the directors cut.

Jikook nurtures their bond- as do certain other pairs in the group.

When JK is crying and he wants to cry in Jimin's arms that says more about their intimacy and the depth of that intimacy than any words can.

When Jungkook says he feels more connected to Jimin on stage after a performance when he holds his gaze that says depth than any words can.

I told Jimin he needs to calm down a little, that he can't sing like this or that. Jungkook helped me a lot with my lines. This says they are not too proud to learn from eachother. That's insight.

Whatever their Taxi fight was about, whatever conversation they'd had- that is emotional vulnerability. That is depth and that is insightful.

Jimin confides a lot of his fears and insecurities in Jk as JK does in him. Jimin would not know Jungkook sucked at emotional vulnerability or expressing his emotions if they hadn't branched into that genre of conversation.

They do have deeper moments- not necessarily conversations and they do have insightful conversations as well-

Besides, half the time Jimin is talking with certain other members he is constantly talking about Jungkook anyway so...

And Jk barely says two words beyond nodding, biting his lips or blanking out...

If Jikook lack depth the other ships involving them is worse🤣

I make exceptions for Vmin and Minimoni.

Jimin and RM are intellectually compatible. They've both said a lot of their conversations are of an intellectual nature. Personaly, I think Jimin makes RM emotionally honest too but whatever. Jimin did say his ideal partner is a mixture of RM and Jungkook. Rm because he stimulates his mind and challenges him, Jungkook because he makes him horny. Perhaps 😏

Vmin are like two emo lesbians. They just do too much emotional rawness and sentimentality in their conversations, sometimes I'm like spare us please😭- its always: Taehyung-ah, Jimin-ah... cue corny Bollywood romance song.

All the ships are unique. They all have different dynamics. Depth in one ship may not look exactly the same as the depth of another ship.

Perhaps, they should learn what deep and insight looks like in a real relationship. What depth and insight looks like in Jikook's dynamic. You put them in a room to talk and they are not gonna pour out their hearts or talk about dance and the things they are passionate about- they're gonna flirt because they find eachother attractive. They're gonna touch, giggle and if they have to say something I think it's gonna be I love you.

We learn a lot from the things people say about Jikook but we see for ourselves what Jimin and Jungkook are about because most times they show us and not just tell us.

People don't take Jikook seriously because they don't want to take them seriously. Anything else they say is just an excuse to marginalize them and invalidate them especially if they take others much more seriously.

Or it's just because they aren't abreast with same sex relationships- which I don't think is a mystery at all. Love is love.

Swap any pair in BTS with heterosexual couples and I don't think people will make Jikook, out of all the other ships, to be the fanservice ship of BTS. If anything the term couple would be befitting of them the most.

And yet somehow because they are men people would rather describe what they have as brothers and for those who admit it's couple-y they wanna dismiss it as a joke or fanservice.

You swap certain ships and you realize people are shipping their own delusions.

As a queer woman, I look at all the ships and wonder how in heavens people can assume certain ships are remotely real.

I find it bizarre.

I really don't care about people's opinions. They are entitled to it. I know what chemistry is, what attraction is, what love is and I see all of that and more in Jikook's dynamic.

No one can bamboozle or bulldoze me into rethinking or redefining what those things are and what they mean.

Sis forget the Jikook antis. Don't waste energy trying to understand them. Let's focus on our ship and put energy into supporting them the best way we can.

I hope this helps??

Signed,

GOLDY

[potteresque-ire]

Happy Pride! 🏳️‍🌈  (June is Pride Month where I am 😊) For the occasion, may I recommend this animated musical short, 秘密港 Safe Haven, by the Beijing Queer Chorus (北京酷兒合唱團)? Published on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOBIT; May 17th, 2021),  the animation, with its lovely (and at times, heartbreaking) song, is about a queer person and their friend who tries to offer their support. The lyrics is English-subbed.

(Below the cut: a wish for the c-queer community; conception of Safe Haven, as explained by the Beijing Queer Chorus; CW/TW for homophobia, violence and forced abortion)

Background for my wish: with the recent Chinese government’s aggressive turnaround in its population control policy to combat its declining birth rate—on 2021/05/31, China further lifted the cap of number of children allowed per couple from 2 to 3 (the number was 1 for almost four decades, 1978-2015; the population control measure has therefore been colloquially called the “One Child Policy”), younger generations of Chinese are already feeling the pressure and fearing the consequences of non-compliance (for example, if the state levies heavy fines on non-child-bearers).   

While I have not yet read articles that directly connect the major policy shift with the c-queer community, I imagine it may bring both relief and additional challenges. The relief will likely take time to come; the challenges, meanwhile,  will likely be immediate. 

This has to do with the root of antagonism against homosexuality in Chinese societies. Unlike in their Western counterparts, Chinese queers have consistently reported that family, instead of societal, pressure as the greatest challenge they face (societal pressure includes that from religion, from government etc). C-queers are expected to abide to the heteronormative traditions of opposite-sex marriage and child-bearing, in a collectivistic, conformist environment still strongly influenced by the Confucian notion that continuing the bloodline is the primary responsibility of a filial child. Men, especially, are under heavy pressure to carry on their family surname. Those who fail to do so are seen as irresponsible at best, moral failures at worst. They suffer anything and everything from constant nagging from their relatives, to ostracisation, to disownment. 

A better known consequence of this cultural antagonism against homosexuality in the tragic Tongqi (同妻 “homo-wives”) phenomenon that is, perhaps, unique to China. 

Tongqi are straight women who unknowingly entered marriage with closeted gay man, who often learn about their spouse’s sexuality only after the filial obligation of having children has been fulfilled. It’s a form of marriage fraud; women who file for divorce, however, are likely to lose custody of their child(ren) under Chinese laws, and so many of them keep mum. The gay men involved are also victims in many cases; the lack of public, open education and discussion of queer topics in the country mean even the queers themselves may not have a full understanding of their own queerness, believe that “straightening” themselves is something they can do with sufficient willpower and love for their family. 

As one may expect, these marriages are mostly unsatisfying; psychiatric issues and intimate partner violence (IPV), which include verbal, emotional and physical abuse, have also been frequently reported. Just how prevalent are Tongqi’s in China that, in turn, reflect how many gay men in China are pressured to remain in the closet and get married? The following numbers may serve as comparison. In 2010, the percentage of gay men married to heterosexual women in the US was 15-25%. In China and in 2018, meanwhile, the reowned Chinese sexologist, sociologist and LGBT rights activist, Li Yinhe (李銀河), quoted an estimate of 80% of China’s ~ 20 million gay men were married to heterosexual wives; i.e. the Tongqi population amounted to ~16 million. Literature has reported a similar estimated size of the Tongqi population—at 13+ million, in 2016. 

(Reason for the numbers being estimates: the exact size of the c-queer community isn’t known. China’s decennial census questionnaire from late last year (2020) once again excluded questions about its own LGBT+ community. "Room mate” is how many c-queers have to refer to their partners).

While the Chinese government decriminalised homosexuality in 1997 and its current laws carry no clauses that target the queer community—the official stance of Chinese government on homosexuality is currently 不支持，不反對，不提倡 “not supporting, not opposing, not advocating”—what may seem to be its non-queer-related policies have indirectly but majorly impacted the lives of c-queers. In particular, the “One Child Policy” has been hypothesised to exacerbate the challenge faced by c-queers, as the only child becomes the sole “next generation” available for producing grandchildren and extending the family bloodline. 

Hence, my expectation / hope that the relaxation of "One Child Policy”, by lifting the cap on the number of children a couple can have, will bring relief to the LGBT+ population—even if the relief will only come years down the road, as the newer generations of c-queers will then have siblings to share their filial responsibilities. 

However, this also explains my worry for now, for the immediate months and years to come, for not only c-queers but the younger generations of Chinese in general. My worry is about how, exactly, the state intends to drive its birth rate upward, and the hardship the new policies may bring. 

The practices of China’s population control policies have historically been brutal. Forced, late-term abortions were common, for example. This is reflected in the country’s birth control propaganda banners, commonly seen in Chinese villages until late 2000s, which were infamous for their verbal violence:

“Beat it out! Abort it! Miscarry it! Just cannot give birth to it!”

Fines, which were levied on offenders of the One Child Policy, may seem like a better option but can place an unbearable burden on poorer families, of which there remain many in China. Premier Li Keqiang reported, in May 2020, that >40% of China’s population—600 million—are living with a monthly income of ~$140 USD or below, despite the glitz often seen in the country’s entertainment productions. Using One Child Policy era fines for reference, the famous Chinese director 張藝謀 Zhang Yimou was fined 7.48 million RMB (~$1.17 million USD) for his three children, in 2013. Defying the new population control policies may therefore be a privilege reserved for the very powerful and very rich. And the government is likely to be aggressive in enforcing its new policies—the social media accounts of > 20 feminist activists, who advocate for reproductive freedom among other women’s rights, have already been shut down in the recent weeks. 

Will the Chinese government find ways to penalise members of the queer community who do not contribute to the new baby count? Will it turn a blind(er) eye to the Tongqi 同妻 (and to a lesser extent, Tongfu 同夫 ~ heterosexual men married to lesbian women) tragedies happening every day? It’s impossible to say yet.

For this year, therefore, I wish the c-queer community this—I wish it to be safe from the reach of China’s population control policies, whatever they will be. 

Back to the animated short, Safe Haven, which is about coming out. In 2016, a 18,000 people survey by the United Nations Development Programme reported only 5% of Chinese queers had come out to people outside their families. Only 15% have come out to their families. A more recent survey reports a significant improvement in these percentages, with ~50% of gays, bisexuals and transgenders and 70% of lesbians having come out to their families (Table 2). Fully out queers remain rare (<10%).

There’s still, therefore, a long way to go. With queers often being out (if they’re out at all) only to their most immediate/intimate social circles, with the state’s censorship of LGBT+ presentation in visual media, many (especially older generations of) non-queers in China haven’t seen a living, breathing, outwardly queer person before. The process of coming out, by extension—what it means, what it takes for both the giver and receiver of the message—may have never entered the thoughts of these non-queers before.

What should they say? What should they do? What words and actions will convey support? What won’t?

Safe Haven is about these questions. I’ll end this post with a translation of the Weibo post in which the animated short was first published, in which Beijing Queer Chorus explained the project’s conception:

#517 IDAHOBIT# Do you remember how it was like, the first time you came out of the closet, or someone came out of the closet to you? Who was that person? What did you say at the time, and how did that person react?

The person who voluntarily exposes their heart requires courage. The person who receives the message may have their own heart filled with unease. 

Maybe, both are thinking: “What should I do?”

Coming out is such an important occasion. It can, perhaps, change a relationship forever.

Some will welcome warmth and hugs. Some others will get their first taste of homophobia. Yet some others will find neither.

After a queer person came out to their friend, they got, in return, “Don’t worry. I’ll still treat you as a friend.” It made them uncomfortable for a long time. But their straight family and friends didn’t understand. How could this be not a kind thing to say?

What is gay-friendly? What is homophobic? It appears that everyone has their own standards. The same words and behaviours transmit warmth to some, deep offence to others.

So, when we’re talking about “homophobia”, what are we talking about?

To commemorate this years #517 IDAHOBIT#, the Beijing Queer Chorus interviewed its tens of members and their relatives and friends, in hopes of investigating the difference in perspectives between homosexuals and straight people. How can this barrier be crossed, how can they work together to take care of the valuable relationships.

In the stories of all interviewees, a warmth like this can be felt: even with the risks, there remain those who are brave enough to display their true self; even with the misunderstandings, there remain those willing to keep the secrets of others, willing to learn to understand a whole new world.

We condensed these stories into an original, animated musical short, Safe Haven.

We hope every boat riding the winds and waves can find a harbour to unload their secrets. We also hope every person has enough gentle strength to be the safe haven for others. 

We offer our best wishes to every queer who lets their heart be seen ~ may your courage reap its rewards.

We thank every friend and family who have treated these hidden matters of the heart seriously. You make the world a better place.

[moiraineswife]

Jasnah - The Facade Meta

Today we’re going to discuss the stormlight of my life, your life, your cat’s life: Jasnah Kholin. Topics of discussion include (but will likely not be limited to): the face she wears, the effect her childhood and what we know if it has had on her, madness, her mother, her perceived invincibility, and whatever else strikes me as relevant in the midst of this chaotic clusterfuck of yelling tarted up as character analysis. 

Now. To business:

Let us begin at the beginning (of what we know) and talk about Jasnah’s childhood illness, and what this has done to her in terms of her relationship with her mother, her outlook on life, and her perception of, well, perception…

“It’s your daughter,” Dalinar guessed. “Her lunacy.”

“Jasnah is fine, and recovering. It’s not that.”  (OB, 49, Born Unto Light)

Peppered through Dalinar’s flashbacks in Oathbringer are small hints at the dark side of Jasnah’s childhood. We’ve had hints before that Jasnah’s life has not always been...entirely typical for a princess.

Her existence as a radiant was a hint itself, as it's implied most of them are ‘broken’ in some way.

The others are more obvious: Kaladin’s depression, Shallan’s PTSD, anxiety, and DID, Dalinar’s repressed memories, and alcoholism etc,etc.

With Jasnah, you know it has to be there, but it’s harder to see. To use Shallan’s metaphor, she’s like a cracked vase, but the cracked side has been turned to the wall, so the outside world sees only smooth perfection.

This flashback comment is the most obvious indication at what caused Jasnah to break. A fairly shocking one for a reader as 'Jasnah' and 'lunacy' seem to match as well as chasmfiends and tea parties.

It also provides some rather awful context for this segment a few chapters earlier:

“Something stirred deep within her. Glimmers of memory from a dark room, screaming her voice ragged. A childhood illness nobody else seemed to remember, for all it had done to her.

“It had taught her that people she loved could still hurt her.”   (O, 47, So Much Is Lost)

We know, given Shallan’s research into Taln at the behest of the Ghostbloods, that the current treatment for madness involves confining the person in darkness.

It seems like far too much of a coincidence that Jasnah, diagnosed with lunacy, would have memories of screaming herself hoarse in a dark room that could somehow be unconnected to this.

Based on my shoddy maths, she was around 11 or 12 at this point, which is marked by many, especially Navani, as a turning point in her life. There was a profound change in how she acted with those around her following this.

“She wouldn’t let me be a mother to her, Dalinar,” Navani said, staring into the distance. “Do you know that? It was almost like . . . like once Jasnah climbed into adolescence, she no longer needed a mother. I would try to get close to her, and there was this coldness, like even being near me reminded her that she had once been a child. What happened to my little girl, so full of questions?” (WoR, 67, Spit and Bile)

It seems like too much of a coincidence, again, to assume that Jasnah’s childhood illness and her confinement had nothing to do with her reluctance to allow Navani to mother her any more.

Jasnah herself reflects that her imprisonment, for lack of a better word, taught her that people she loved could still hurt her. It seems very likely that this refers to Navani and Gavilar, as they would have allowed this treatment to continue. It’s also likely the reason for the change in their relationship afterwards.

Navani's presence didn't remind her she had been a child; it reminded her of what had been done to her.

Navani’s little girl was branded insane and locked away in a dark room with her parents' consent. This removed her ability to trust in Navani to mother and protect her. She kept her distance, she kept herself aloof and removed from everyone, and that’s something that hasn’t changed over twenty years later.

She takes no wards, an expected thing for a woman of her rank. She's unmarried, well past the age she should be. She has no friends, the closest she has are both "pen pals" she communicates with via spanreed.

Jasnah, of all the characters in Stormlight, is the one least emotionally connected. She clearly loves her family, and is devoted to them...But again it's from a distance.

She works in the shadows with assassins to protect them. She studies the end of the world a world away from everyone she loves.

When we see her in Kharbranth for the first time with Shallan, she’s alone.

The servants she uses seem to belong to the Palaneum. She travels alone, she researches and works and bears her burdens alone.

The sole exception is Ivory and she doesn't really have a choice with him BUT to have him with her.

I am NOT suggesting that Jasnah doesn’t actually care about her family/Shallan - we see repeatedly that she absolutely does.

Poignantly, the first thing Renarin’s visions predict that turns out to be false is the lack of love that Jasnah has - they claim she will choose logic and kill her cousin, but she chooses to save him instead.

It’s clear that Jasnah cares very deeply...but she also deliberately distances herself, both physically and emotionally, from other people.

(continued below)

Jasnah is so independent that it’s almost a flaw. She’s an interesting opposite to Kaladin, in this regard.

Kaladin defines himself so much by those around him, his family, his men, those under his care and protection, that that almost becomes a flaw in him. He destroys himself to protect them, and every failure wrecks him.

Jasnah keeps everyone away. She operates alone, in secret, and she clearly struggles to let people get close to her.

The reasons for this are twofold, I feel.

The first one is assassins: Jasnah has been ‘killed’ by one such assassination attempt, has survived another, who made multiple attempts on her life in the form of Kabsal, and has almost certainly experienced more beyond that.

Her casual expectation that Kabsal is trying to use Shallan to get close to her, likely, though she doesn’t say it, to kill her - which turns out to be true.

She knows firsthand how easy it is for someone with enough money and influence to place spies and assassins into a setting- she does it herself all the time. And it resulted in the death of her father.

In a lot of ways, she’s as paranoid about assassination as Elhokar is - she just expresses it in a far more subtle/rational way. Where Elhokar rants and panics, Jasnah blocks up air vents and rejects rooms in the 90000 foot, lost for centuries, tower with balconies because they're a security flaw.

The second reason for her emotional isolation, I believe, is what caused her initial withdrawal from Navani.

Being believed mad, locked in a dark room, screaming for help and being ignored, and knowing that your parents, the people whom you went to with questions and looked to for safety and protection are at least partially responsible, all at the age of eleven is...fairly damaging.

Jasnah hides the effects of her trauma far better than Kaladin or Shallan. This is probably partially because she’s older and has been dealing with it for longer.

By this point, her trauma reactions (which went, by her own admission, unaddressed by her family after what happened, which is traumatising in itself), have melded in with her personality/are brushed off as simply Jasnah being Jasnah.  

“I know what people say of me. I should hope that I am not as harsh as some say, though a woman could have far worse than a reputation for sternness. It can serve one well.”  (TWoK, 8, Nearer the Flame).

As a matter of fact, we know full well that Jasnah ISN’T as harsh or stern as she’s claimed to be. Shallan repeatedly affirms to Kabsal, and to a reader, that Jasnah is not what she expected - a stern, harsh mistress. She also notes that Jasnah believes herself to be one - likely due to everyone else perceiving her that way.

I think the perception of Jasnah is one that she’s cultivated deliberately - a stern, aloof, even harsh person. Not one anyone would want to be close to. Also not someone anyone would associate with weakness, or needing to be cared for or protected.

More than assassins, I think Jasnah fears people who love her with good intentions, and the ability to assert those good intentions upon her, because it's "for her own good".

When she was a child it led to her imprisonment, something which still triggers traumatic flashbacks over ten years later. She fears having people she loves hurt her. And so she keeps them away, and cultivates for herself a presence that doesn’t need to be cared for, that almost doesn’t need or want to be loved, so that can never happen again.

She rejects, most notably and strongly, her mother, and any implication of a husband. This has led to speculation about her sexuality - maybe she’s gay - though it seems fairly acceptable in Alethkar for a person to be gay (they don’t even have to fill out social reassignment forms!). I

It might be more frowned upon in noble society, due to the expectation of forming political marriages, and while I don’t necessarily doubt it (give me queer Jasnah, Brandon, I beg of you, I’m a starving lesbian and I need this) the only commentary we have from Jasnah on the subject sems to suggest a different, sadder, motive:

Jasnah relaxed visibly. “Yes, well, it did seem a workable solution. I had wondered, however, if you’d be offended.”

“Why on the winds would I be offended?”

“Because of the restriction of freedom implicit in a marriage,” Jasnah said. “And if not that, because the offer was made without consulting you.

[...]

“It doesn’t bother you at all?” Jasnah said. “The idea of being beholden to another, particularly a man?”

“It’s not like I’m being sold into slavery,” Shallan said with a laugh.

“No. I suppose not.” Jasnah shook herself, her poise returning.

(WoR, 1, Santhid).

This is the only time, after an entire book of content in which Jasnah, amongst other things: Soulcasts three men into oblivion, is almost assassinated repeatedly, is betrayed by the first person she’s taken in and trusted in a long time, and is researching the literal end of the world, that Shallan notes Jasnah looking nervous/uncomfortable in discussing anything.

And it’s about marriage.

Jasnah views marriage as being a ‘restriction of freedom’ and finds it distasteful because it encompasses the idea ‘of being beholden to another’.

Anything that even implicitly binds her to another or puts them in her power is something she wants nothing to do with. And, legally, if she were ever to be accused of lunacy again, the two people most likely to have the authority to make a decision on her treatment/send her back to the ardents would be either a parent, or a husband.

The first she’s distanced herself from in pretty much every way since the first event, and the second she’s refused to entertain for years, to the point that high society whispers that she must be gay.

I also think she's uncomfortable because she sees what she did here - setting up a betrothal, which she views as a restriction of freedom - for Shallan, without consulting her, as the same thing that was done to her as a child.

A restriction of freedom for Shallan’s own good. The same justification that was used to imprison her. It's obviously not the same, but Jasnah views marriage as a kind of imprisonment. So in her mind it is.

Jasnah also has huge trust issues. She just covers them with what appears to be personality traits - of being independent, and aloof - but that’s largely just a cover for her own insecurities, and her fear of ever having her freedoms restricted again.

This idea also gives a little bit more of a twist (or dramatic gut punch, thanks Brandon), to her advice to Shallan about perception and power:

“Power is an illusion of perception.”

Shallan frowned.

“Don’t mistake me,” Jasnah continued. “Some kinds of power are real—power to command armies, power to Soulcast. These come into play far less often than you would think. On an individual basis, in most interactions, this thing we call power—authority—exists only as it is perceived.

“You say I have wealth. This is true, but you have also seen that I do not often use it. You say I have authority as the sister of a king. I do. And yet, the men of this ship would treat me exactly the same way if I were a beggar who had convinced them I was the sister to a king. In that case, my authority is not a real thing. It is mere vapors—an illusion. I can create that illusion for them, as can you.”  (WoR, 1, Santhid)

Jasnah is talking here with Shallan about being more confident, assertive, and being able to have people do what you want (Something Navani later notes Jasnah is very good at doing).

But I think Jasnah uses this same idea - the power of perception, as a defence mechanism against her trauma, a way to protect herself.

We dismiss her isolation as aloofness. We dismiss her lack of emotional reaction as a cornerstone of the "strong female character" trope. But I think it's deeper than that. Because Jasnah isn't ACTUALLY like that deep down. It's a perception she works very hard to achieve.

Jasnah uses logic in a similar way to how Shallan uses art and drawing, or how Kaladin uses training with the spear. It’s a distraction, a grounding technique, something she can calm herself with. It’s an anchor and a crutch all at the same time.

Jasnah is logical to a fault, to the point that it makes others see her as a monster lacking empathy. I don’t think, at any point in the last few books, we’ve seen Jasnah genuinely distressed/angry/displaying emotion to the point she’d be considered out of control.

Almost all the other POV characters have had moments of weakness/breakdowns/extremely poignant emotional displays. But not Jasnah. All we ever see from Jasnah is the controlled, cultivated perception that she wants us to see. Something which I think is rooted in her trauma.

Logic is the antithesis of lunacy. Rational thought is the direct counter to madness. If the whole world sees Jasnah as logical, utterly in control of herself, if that is the perception she has everyone believe at all times then she can’t be accused of madness again.

Madness, at least in Jasnah’s mind, is an outburst of excessive, uncontrolled emotion. It is the opposite of logic. It’s acting impulsively, without thought, based purely on emotions. Ivory supports this idea:

“Ivory, you think all humans are unstable.”

“Not you,” he said, lifting his chin. “You are like a spren. You think by facts. You change not on simple whims. You are as you are.”

She gave him a flat stare.

“Mostly,” he added. “Mostly. But it is, Jasnah. Compared to other humans, you are practically a stone!” (O, 39, Notes)

Even Ivory, who has been closer to Jasnah in recent years than anyone we know of in the series so far, characterises her this way.

She rejects this idea, telling Ivory that:

 “You call me logical,” Jasnah whispered. “It’s untrue, as I let my passions rule me as much as many.”  (O, 39, Notes)  I think this is true, she does let her passions rule her, but she doesn’t let anyone, even Ivory, see that from her.

That's deliberate. She deliberately makes herself out to be this logic-driven robot, with no feeling or passion.

To the world, Jasnah Kholin is the consummate scholar, the eternally logical thinker, untouched by empathy or feeling. This is how she wants them to think of her.

We know that it’s not true. We know that Jasnah is driven by emotions - her guilt at feeling like she failed Gavilar, her fear for what’s coming for the world, her love for her family, her true passion for scholarship and knowledge.

This is particularly notable when set against a character who exemplifies the opposite in so many ways: Kaladin.

“Yes. The answer is obvious. We need to find the Heralds.”

Kaladin nodded in agreement.

“Then,” Jasnah added, “we need to kill them.”

“What?” Kaladin demanded. “Woman, are you insane?”

“The Stormfather laid it out,” Jasnah said, unperturbed. “The Heralds made a pact. When they died, their souls traveled to Damnation and trapped the spirits of the Voidbringers, preventing them from returning.”

“Yeah. Then the Heralds were tortured until they broke.”

“The Stormfather said their pact was weakened, but did not say it was destroyed,” Jasnah said. “I suggest that we at least see if one of them is willing to return to Damnation. Perhaps they can still prevent the spirits of the enemy from being reborn. It’s either that, or we completely exterminate the parshmen so that the enemy has no hosts.” She met Kaladin’s eyes. “In the face of such an atrocity, I would consider the sacrifice of one or more Heralds to be a small price.”

“Storms!” Kaladin said, standing up straight. “Have you no sympathy?”

“I have plenty, bridgeman. Fortunately, I temper it with logic.”  (O, 39, Notes)

Ah, the old ‘punt the Heralds back to Damnation to buy us time’ argument. Lovely.

Jasnah and Kaladin are at two different ends of the sympathy-logic spectrum and it was kind of inevitable they’d clash. But I think it makes Jasnah’s assertions more...Stark and shocking, when she pitches them to Kaladin.

What she suggests IS logical. And it’s actually the same sort of logic that led the Heralds themselves to abandon Taln to Damnation in the first place: “better that one man should suffer than ten.”

It’s a cold, harsh, brutal logic, and it’s very typical of how Jasnah likes to present herself when she’s speaking to others.

The killing of the footpads in Kharbranth is another prime example - it’s all cold, dissected logic when she reasons through it with Shallan afterwards. (Though I imagine if we saw Jasnah’s POV of it in the moment, it would be very different than what she presents).

Because what I find most interesting about the Heralds argument is that we get Jasnah, just Jasnah, away from anyone who has to view her performance of perception, reflecting on the situation. And her internal thoughts/her private reactions are very different from those she displays in public.

“These words trouble you,” he said, stepping up to her again and resting his jet-black fingers on the paper. “Why? You have read many troubling things.”

[...]

Something stirred deep within her. Glimmers of memory from a dark room, screaming her voice ragged. A childhood illness nobody else seemed to remember, for all it had done to her.

It had taught her that people she loved could still hurt her.

“Have you ever wondered how it would feel to lose your sanity, Ivory?”

Ivory nodded. “I have wondered this. How could I not? Considering what the ancient fathers are.”

“You call me logical,” Jasnah whispered. “It’s untrue, as I let my passions rule me as much as many. In my times of peace, however, my mind has always been the one thing I could rely upon.”

Except once.

She shook her head, picking up the paper again. “I fear losing that, Ivory. It terrifies me. How would it have felt, to be these Heralds? To suffer your mind slowly becoming untrustworthy? Are they too far gone to know? Or are there lucid moments, where they strain and sort through memories … trying frantically to decide which are reliable and which are fabrications…”

She shivered.  (O, 39, Notes).

In an ironic (fuck you Brandon) twist: I think Jasnah knows EXACTLY what she’s suggesting they do to the Heralds. She’s also probably the person in that room who has the most experience with/has contemplated most what they would be condemning them to, and who therefore empathises with them the most.

It’s STRONGLY implied in this passage that Jasnah has experienced some sort of hallucinations in the past. Possibly this is connected to some kind of neurodivergence. I think this more likely than the alternative - that she was seeing into Shadesmar, because I believe that her imprisonment was what caused her to ‘break’ and enabled her to form her spren bond in the first place. But it’s possible. 

Regardless of what’s happened in the past, now, Jasnah’s mind is her sanctuary. If she only ever knows one thing it’s her own mind. She’s a rationalist. She puts her faith in things that she can know intuitively, via logic, like maths - things that exist independently of god, that cannot be doubted. Their truth is tied to their very existence. All that's required to know it is to know her own mind and reason. Losing that is quite literally the worst thing she can think of.

And honestly? Taln’s story probably really fucks with her. Because what he went through is what she went through, too, as a child.

Taln was dismissed as a madman, because no one believed what he said, even though it was true. Truth doesn’t matter; not when it comes to being perceived mad. Nor does being right. Taln was telling the truth. Taln was right. Taln was a goddamn Herald. And they still decided he was mad and locked him away in a dark room, alone, the same way they did to her.

Jasnah knows what that feels like. Jasnah empathises with Taln and the other Heralds more than probably anyone else. But she speaks of condemning these people to that fate, to the greatest hell she can think of, calmly, and rationally. But that’s absolutely not what she really feels/thinks. There is...Such a stark difference, when you really sit and think about it, in the Jasnah that she lets everyone see, and the Jasnah that exists only behind closed doors.

She could see Jasnah’s face, hand against her temple, staring at the pages spread before her. Jasnah’s eyes were haunted, her expression haggard.

This was not the Jasnah that Shallan was accustomed to seeing. The confidence had been overwhelmed by exhaustion, the poise replaced by worry. Jasnah started to write something, but stopped after just a few words. She set down the pen, closing her eyes and massaging her temples. A few dizzy-looking spren, like jets of dust rising into the air, appeared around Jasnah’s head. Exhaustionspren.

Shallan pulled back, suddenly feeling as if she’d intruded upon an intimate moment. Jasnah with her defenses down. (WoR, 6, Terrible Destruction).

The text itself characterises Jasnah’s mask as a defence. A defence against being known, a defence against being seen as anything other than perfectly logical. Having this mask so firmly and so constantly in place is a lot of work. It’s almost a compulsion for her at this point - the refusal to let anyone else in, the strict adherence to logic, regardless of her own feelings or how it makes others see her. Better to be emotionless and in control, utterly, unquestionably sane and rational, than to ever go back to being considered mad.

This, ironically, isn't rational behaviour. It's a trauma response. I'm stating this, the idea that being emotionless/always rational prevents anyone viewing her as insane again (though, again ironically, this is exactly what Kaladin accuses her of being (OUCH)). But I think these are facts in Jasnah's mind? It's her coping mechanism. It's a really bad one. But that's what it is.

As an interesting side note - I think the only time we ever see Jasnah draw emotion spren is when she’s on her own (or assumes she’s on her own, as in this passage, or too exhausted to keep them away entirely - like the single fearspren she draws later in this chapter).

This feels notable because every other character who features in the books, even minor side characters, draws emotion spren of one sort or another at some point in the text.

Jasnah, for all that she’s on screen, draws very little. This may be a function of her ability to tap into Shadesmar, to keep them away, remove any trace of emotion spren from spawning around her. That or she just has such a tight hold on her emotions that she doesn’t draw them.

Either way, I think it’s (another) sign that her behaviour isn’t entirely natural. Spren are everywhere on Roshar, you draw them when you feel a powerful emotion - that’s a natural day-to-day occurrence there.

Unless you’re Jasnah.

Maybe that’s straying a little too far into the realms of what’s reasonable, but I do still think that Jasnah’s output, especially when it contrasts, often very strongly, with her internal feelings, is a coping mechanism/a response to the trauma she endured as a child.

Madness is a fairly strong theme in Stormlight, a few of the characters discuss it/experience it. Syl asks Kaladin fairly directly what it is:

“What is madness?” she asked, sitting with one leg up against her chest, vaporous skirt flickering around her calves and vanishing into mist.

“It’s when men don’t think right,” Kaladin said, glad for the conversation to distract him.

“Men never seem to think right.”

“Madness is worse than normal,” Kaladin said with a smile. “It really just depends on the people around you. How different are you from them? The person that stands out is mad, I guess.” *(TWOK) 

Dalinar’s TWOK arc deals very strongly with madness and the ability to trust your own mind. Taln is, as has been noted, locked away for being mad. Several of the Heralds and the Fused are described as mad after what they've been put through. It's something I expect to be explored further as the series progresses.

Jasnah, I think, is the character who tries so hard never to seem that way. Never to be unhinged, or unbalanced, or affected by what's happened to her. But of course we know that she is.

I think, though, that it’s easy to write off Jasnah's trauma. The other characters all have flaws that are very obvious/things that make them obviously ‘broken’ in terms of their spren bond and the oaths they need to speak.

Kaladin suffers from depression, and from crippling guilt, and taking on too much responsibility. But also with his anger, and his hatred towards those who have wronged him, and how that can push him to blame them/avoid responsibility for what’s happened to him. Basically, his inability to let go or move forwards.

Shallan has the opposite problem, and an inability to look back/face the past. She repressed memories of trauma, and wove lies over them to protect herself, which she had to overcome to progress.

Dalinar had his alcoholism, and prior to that, his ‘addiction’ (which I think is absolutely how it’s written/the parallels are pretty obvious) to The Thrill. He had to accept responsibility, and guilt, and grief, and pain. He had to acknowledge that he had been a bad person, who was not worthy of Evi, but also that he’s capable of change, and improving himself, and becoming a better man.

Their trauma responses are loud, and obvious, and messy. They're aware of them, a reader is aware of them, the other characters are aware of them. "They stand out" if you like.

Jasnah does everything she can to ensure the effects of her trauma never stand out. To the point that other characters fairly consistently characterise Jasnah as perfect/an ideal woman.

I’m NOT saying that the text ACTUALLY presents Jasnah as being perfect/without any flaws (that’s...that’s kinda the point of this entire meta) but the characters gloss over these things/her flaws are perceived as good things?

She’s seen as so aloof, so unflappable, so commanding, and in control. She’s highly intelligent, she’s beautiful, she’s a cunning tactician and politician. Shallan claims that she’s almost always right, which Renarin backs up. Dalinar trusts and respects her, and wants her back at the war camps to aid them. She’s a highly revered scholar, respected, and brilliant. She is, in a way, almost beyond human, let alone being flawed or broken like the rest of them.

Jasnah grimaced at the thought. Shallan was always surprised to see visible emotion from her. Emotion was something relatable, something human—and Shallan’s mental image of Jasnah Kholin was of someone almost divine. (WoR, 1, Santhid).

Shallan reflects that seeing her as divine is a weird way to consider a heretic, and we’re kind of led along into that thread. But it’s also very...Othering?

It’s a “positive” kind of othering: she’s divine/superhuman, that’s great! Only it’s...It’s not? It’s so easy to see Jasnah as beyond human, and that makes us forget what she’s endured, and ignore the walls she’s put up and the profound effect that it’s had on her. And the fact that this is not healthy at all.

It's so unhealthy to be put on a pedestal this way. And it's unhealthy to cultivate a persona that makes the only response to you one that sees you as beyond human/without typical human reactions and emotions?

Shallan can be a bit whimsical and can romanticise/idealise people, but even Navani, another deeply scholarly, rational, and logical thinker, categorises Jasnah in a similar way.

She’s dismissive of the idea that Jasnah can have died. Even when others (like Adolin) start getting worried about the ship’s delay, Navani is sure that Jasnah is fine.

Part of this is, I assume, due to the fact that Jasnah is a radiant and, as the Diagram predicts, they survive when they should have been killed - so Navani has had this idea reinforced with empirical evidence over the years, which is noted in the text.

However, when Shallan first brings her the news of Jasnah’s death she refuses to believe it. Even after Shallan tells Navani she watched Jasnah stabbed through the heart, Navani still refers to her as being ‘unconscious’ (which...is actually correct, in this instance) but that is besides my point: regardless of reason or logic, people presume that Jasnah is beyond such mortal, trivial, human things like death:

‘Though Jasnah had been away for some time, her loss was unexpected. I, like many, assumed her to be immortal.’

If she’s beyond death, she’s certainly beyond something like trauma, or being broken, or damaged.

“You’re still human,” Shallan said, reaching across, putting her hand on Navani’s knee. “We can’t all be emotionless chunks of rock like Jasnah.”

Navani smiled. “She sometimes had the empathy of a corpse, didn’t she?”

“Comes from being too brilliant,” Shallan said. “You grow accustomed to everyone else being something of an idiot, trying to keep up with you.”

[...]

How surreal it was to imagine Jasnah as a child being held by a mother. (Wor, 77, Trust).

More ‘othering’, less positive than the divine, but it clearly categorises Jasnah as something other than human, and in this case, it fixates on her lack of (perceived) emotion.

Jasnah has so defined herself by her lack of emotional response to things that even those closest to her -her ward and her mother - view her as emotionless, like a rock, a corpse, dead. Ivory also says this in a previous quote “you are like spren” / “you are practically a stone.” Jasnah is categorised as strong, invulnerable to emotion, beyond human, something other. 

Though Jasnah, as she herself admits, makes decisions based on emotion.

For all that she says about pursuing the footpads in Kharbranth as purely an act of logic/civic duty, I think you can sense the emotion in that moment.

“Besides, men like those…” There was something in her voice, an edge Shallan had never heard before.

What was done to you? Shallan wondered with horror. And who did it? (TWOK, 36, The Lesson)

Shallan can sense it. This is the point where Jasnah’s mask is at its most strong. She defends, calmly and rationally, what she had done. But I think at this point Shallan, and the reader, gets the sense that when Jasnah is her MOST logical and composed, she’s also her most vulnerable and emotional.

She does the same thing in the scene with Kaldin discussing the fates of the Heralds - yet we actually see later, not just through Shallan, the emotions, and the turmoil, and the direct, traumatic flashbacks Jasnah is experiencing in that moment. All covered up with logic and reason.

I think what Brandon is doing with Jasnah is really clever. Because I think media has conditioned us to accept these cold, aloof characters.

Characters who have become hardened to the world, and numbed by their experiences with violence and trauma. So we accept these things more readily as personality traits/a symptom of modern media.

I think especially with female characters. The "strong female character" who isn't allowed to cry lest she be called hysterical, who can't react to trauma or she's weak, who can't have an outburst of emotion or she's mad.

With Jasnah, I think Brandon is continuing to show how trauma expresses itself differently in different people. And I think, once explored more directly, Jasnah will become a condemnation of the easy acceptance/idealisation of these kinds of traits. What she’s doing is not okay. It’s not healthy. It’s as self-destructive as what Shallan, or Kaladin, or Dalinar was doing, we've just been conditioned to accept and even praise it.

Jasnah has so much pressure piled upon her to be perfect. She’s made an illusion so believable even those closest to her can’t see through it. She comes across as divine, as something other than human, as emotionless, and absolute. She’s become a constant in the world of those around her. She’s a law of nature more than a person - like a spren.

Except she’s not.

She’s human.

And she’s broken.

And she’s suffering a trauma that makes her afraid to be even a little bit human - because then they might think her mad again, and she’ll lose everything, and she can’t handle that.

I’m FASCINATED to see Jasnah’s interactions (if we get any on-screen) with Taln and Ash. It will probably give a big insight into her character, her relation to madness/her past illness, and I think it will bring out an interesting side of her, which I’m curious to see.

But I'm also really interested to see how Brandon explores the idea of the "ideal traumatised woman' and how that's absolutely bullshit and completely unhealthy.

Jasnah is, on the surface, everything men demand from a "strong female character". She's been exposed to trauma but she doesn't "let it define her" (ie she doesn't seemingly react to it at all). She's beautiful, and she's intelligent, she's a (literal) Queen, she's a fighter/skilled warrior, she's never "overly-emotional" - she reacts to trauma exactly as she's "supposed" to - as defined by men, she's the epitome of a stereotypical "strong female character".

Except there are obvious flaws in that ideal. The first one being: she does not exist for men. Fairly obviously. She point blank refuses a husband.

Also: it's been implied, as per this meta, that this is NOT an ideal anyone should aim for. It's actually very unhealthy and self-destructive and I really, REALLY hope that when Brandon finally digs into Jasnah that this is something he explores.

Jasnah is not perfect. She is not unbreakable, and invincible, and beyond emotion. And she shouldn't be. She shouldn't be idealised.

She's a person. A human being. And she should be able to express herself and process her trauma in a healthy way that allows her to heal and grow. She shouldn't be forced into anyone's ideal of who or what she should be.

I'm just...Really really excited for Jasnah's arc and what Brandon can say through her and the harmful tropes regarding women's trauma he can explore and god...can I just have the next six stormlight books now please?

[xclusivetism]

Debunking ‘gender identity’ by gender ≠ sex.

Having gender identity may seem noble divergence from our gender rigid society, the solution to stop such and embrace self-expression.

However after examining it through, ‘gender identity’ the way the ideology says doesn’t really exist and actually still perpetuates gender conformity.

And no, there’s no need for “there’s only two sexes” or any science  argument at all to disprove gender identity. Gender ideology so f l a w e d that it can do it perfectly itself out of any of above the fastest just by Gender ≠ sex.

You probably read many things that try to disprove gender and thought it was wrong or outdated that scientist have discover there’s people with XXXY.

But after reading this, If it doesn’t peak you or at least make you question gender, then i honestly really don’t know what will other than to call you deluded.

What is Gender

Gender ≠ sex is the essential foundation of gender.

To order to know the difference, we need to know what individually each are.

Gender is a social construct

Gender Identity

Gender expression

That means.

Sex is a physical construct

Sex

Sexual orientation

The first thing that instantly break Gender ≠ sex

“Sex is not binary, Sex is a spectrum or intersex exist”

That already outed you as a hypocrite especially when responding to “there’s only two sexes” saying that they’re conflating sex and gender.

Why should sex being binary or not be relevant to gender identity?

LGB and T are antithetical.

Since Gender ≠ Sex, LGB and T shouldn’t be consider one.

Sexuality is a Sexual orientation not a gender orientation, to suggest it means gender too is conflation.

For a trans-woman to say they’re lesbian or a trans-man to say they’re gay is incorrect & impossible because they’re straight. Gender identity doesn’t shift sexuality status because they’re separate things and to suggest so is homophobic. For a trans to say that invalidates their identity is another conflation of gender and sex.

LGB is a sex-based group while T is a gender-based group. One’s based on sexual attraction and the other is based on changing gender, they are absolutely nothing alike.

‘Cis’ is enough entitlement to be trans exclusive.

Terfs don’t like being called ‘Cis’

But let’s say they drop the belief that “transwomen aren’t real women” and say “transwomen aren’t ciswomen” and want spaces of their own

They put the ‘Cis’ prefix 

Cis woman schools

Cis woman attracted

Cis woman bathroom

Cis woman sports

Cis woman locker rooms

Cis woman administrator 

Cis woman health

Cis women history

etc.

Instead of saying “only women can breastfeed” they use “only AFAB can breastfeed”.

According to TRA logic, all that would be valid.

To for one to say that’s segregation, you would also have to believe separation of men and women or other types groups is segregation as well. A Cis person doesn’t have the trans experience and that goes the other way around.

‘Transwo/man’ is transphobic itself.

Gender ≠ Sex physical transitioning would be a conflation.

If it’s not a conflation, that would imply that physical features are social constructs which includes reproduction, sexuality etc.

Gender is a social construct, all you need to be a gender is identify.

Gender dysphoria is only a social dysphoria, if it’s about the physical then it’s really sex dysphoria. To say it isn’t is conflation.

But even identifying as a ‘wo/man’ itself also is transphobic because the meaning behind it is sex base.

the definition of wo/man.

Adult human fe/male being

What does fe/male mean?

(Female) of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

(Male) of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

One can go down in the definition to point that it also means this.

Relating to wo/men or the fe/male gender.

To say wo/man in the definition also refer to gender, isn’t that a conflation and breaking Gender ≠ Sex? My oh my so many usage of the word conflation.

Gender identity.

Non-binary is not a gender, nothing of it say it’s a gender. It’s just non-binary of something which is usually assumed of not being man or woman. But not being a man or woman doesn’t say of what it is only of what it is not. If the binary part is something else that mean a person who identifies as a woman or man (including cis) can be considered non-binary. Non-binary is really just a slot. 

So far the solid identifies are

Man

Woman

Neutrois

Queer

Agender 

Androgyne is both man and woman. Genderqueer wo/man is both of queer and wo/man. Pangender is all.

Everything else is either a flux, degree, combination of the above or based on a different concept. Things like such as bigender are umbrella because it doesn’t specify if it’s man or woman or something else.

That being said, the only one that’s truly gender non-conformist is agender. Queer is still gender conforming just not to man or woman.

What are the distinctive qualities of each identity?

It’s said that gender expression is different than identity and that someone who identifies as a boy can be very feminine still.

So we’re not gonna use association of masculinity, femininity etc. to define it then.

So what identity mean is it’s usually answered as someone’s ‘personal sense.’

If it’s a personal sense that mean it would be mean it’s a personal construct.

Personal or social construct regardless, it doesn’t say the characteristics. If you can’t point out what to define the labels become hallow. 

There’s many things that aren’t concrete that can show one it’s existence.

An abstract thing like 1, can present it’s existence.

A thing we cannot fully see of like the 4D can present it’s existence.

Even pseudo scientific like zodiacs signs have specific qualities to describe, personality types and even religion has something to define.

In the means of gender, all the identities really sums down to meaningless labels. In the means of sex, the word woman or man are names for physical characteristics that is observed at birth. 

Problem with “assigned gender identity at birth”

No one was “assigned” at birth, “cis” people don’t match what their doctors assign. Assign word implies duty and a job. Assign is often a thing that doesn’t always taking what the subject is to account, for example you being assigned to a seat is sometimes random and not based your rowdiness or attentiveness. 

The doctor characterised people a ‘wo/man’ based on observing them. Woman and Man are distinguisher (just like fruits and veggies) of physical characteristics.

People are assigned a gender expression at life.

Gender identity doesn’t exist other than being a label, gender identity is based on sex hence that label. What’s assigned is actually gender expression.

What Society does

(Biology) Sex → gender identity ↓ ←gender expression (Society)

↓ Gender identity → gender roles

What TRAs think to solve it

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

Sex Ⓧ gender identity (society)

Sex → gender identity (different)

↓ gender identity (different) → sex → society → expression = gender roles

What Gender critical think to solve it

Sex → gender identity → gender expression→ society = gender roles

Putting it to perspective

Whenever GC say this:

Sex → gender identity

This is how TRAs view it:

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

↓ 

Sex → gender identity = gender roles

and thus GC = society pushing gender norm

and the TRA misses this:

→ gender expression→ society = gender roles

Gender ideology pushes gender conformity, just in backwards.

Society enforces femininity on women and masculinity on men to maintain a heteronormative hierarchy aka patriarchy. 

Gender ideology is a patriarchal chest play to keep people from actually breaking such status quo by putting the gender role but backwards.

Societal gender roles

Women must be feminine

Men must be masculine

Gender ideology

Feminine is woman

Masculine is man

Neither is non-binary

Anything else it’s a new gender

‘Cis’ means comfortable of the societal gender role

‘Trans’ means not comfortable of societal gender role

GRA say expression is different from identity to hide the fact that it in a way still pushes gender conformity. They confuse the names for physical characteristics ‘wo/man’ as entire gender construct and expression. 

Here’s the damage Gender ideology does.

So far GRA activist blur what sex and gender is, despite their gender ≠ sex.

Blurring gender and sex create problems for the LGB and women, by making anyone able to appropriates them by identification and transing so long as they feel it, remember these two groups are on the oppressed side. There isn’t even a qualification (not even dyphoria) to be considered trans. Growing kids & teen are getting into this as well ruining their bodies, ask yourselves how are they old enough to block puberty but not drink alcohol?

People’s motivation for why they want to of certain gender is not look thorough enough. 

People in general again who again don’t fit with gender norms

Women with internal misogyny/trauma

Gay/Lesbian with internal homophobia/trauma

Men who want more access to women for misogynistic reasons.

You cannot ever feel something you cannot comprehend.

And you cannot ever comprehend not feeling it.

One’s thought of feeling or not like a boy/girl comes were form by the brain cells of XX or XY chromosome or whatever.

Here’s a color analogy i have to show case the difference between one who feels like wo/man vs someone who actually is.

Identifying as one.

Actually being one.

The gender dysphoric pandemic

The correct word for what people mean by gender dysphoria would be sex dysphoria people who are dysphoric of their physical sex body.

Sometimes transsexual need mechanical intervention to relief their sex dysphoria.

Most people who are ‘trans’ aren’t transsexual as that is rare and projecting the gender dysphoria to their bodies instead should be towards society. There’s some types of transwomen who have autogynephilia (reverse heterosexuality, which is nothing wrong in of itself but alot of them are doing bad with it) are motivated by sexuality and is projecting that thing of wanting to become the opposite sex.

Gender dysphoria

A lot of people in the world have gender dysphoria some in more degree than others. 

Many movement where brought out because of gender dyshoria 

LGB because gender roles often link to heteronormative.

Feminism/Women’s rights including the ‘Terfs’ is a inherently gender dysphoric movement.

Gender criticals are inherently gender dysphoric.

What trans movement doing is conflating gender dysphoria with sex dysphoria but they are actually perpetuating gender norms.

The only gender construct that matters is identity which is woman or man because that exist to distinguish people of certain biological characteristics. “Masculinity” and “Femininity” isn’t real, they’re just many expressions boxed into one or the other enforce to people into gender roles which are by large hierarchy called patriarchy. If there is natural patterns that’s sex behavior.

Most people in the trans community aren’t bad, they’re being exploited by the people who are bad. The people who are bad are motivated to destroy children, LGB and women’s rights, depressedly under all this is essentially a men’s right movement but left wing. We need to take those men (and few women) with evil intent to account now.

Right leaning and traditional etc. people role in this whole thing. 

Conservative/traditionalist/religious people who claim to be gender critical, are most of times far from it and are in fact gender rights activist but trans critical that’s the only different between them and the bad trans people above. The trans movement is mostly a side-effect and these people are kinda the reason for it. Gender roles are toxic considering that people especially have to resort in changing their bodies for not fitting in and the gender ideology is a outlet. 

So it’s pure insanity conservative/traditionalist/religious people to keep insisting that be men masculine and women be feminine and that’s it’s all fine and fail to acknowledge, comprehend or disregard people who are gender dysphoric to those roles (feminism being the biggest example) making them seem pathological abnormalities when complaining about them. 

There’s truly a lot of people who are non-conformist but were too scared to be themselves because people like them and it has been rampant for thousand of years. They use not seeing alot of them as prove to enforce their patriarchal rhetoric.

Conclusion

What people need to talk about is their gender dysphoria (but not ideology kind) but of the roles in society. Let transsexuals be their own group without the gender nonsense in peace. We need start embracing gender non-conformity without needing to change our biological identity.

[ladyloveandjustice]

Books I read in 2020 Bonus Review: I’m in Love with the Villainess

I’m in Love with the Villainess follows a 20-something Japanese office lady named Rei, who, presumably after dying (potentially of overwork since she mentions her company was exploitative and she was forced into way too much overtime) gets reincarnated as the heroine of her favorite otome game/dating sim.

The thing is, Rei doesn’t play otome games for dateable male characters- in fact, she finds them to be pretty boring. She prefers flawed characters, characters who seem human- and for her, that’s the villainess of the game, Claire. Claire, who she has quite the crush on, and is pretty much the main reason she enjoyed this game so much.

So, having been reincarnated as the heroine, Claire proceeds to ignore all the boys and instead responds to Claire’s bullying with “Oh! Miss Claire! Please step on me harder!” (this is word for word what she says).

What follows is mostly fun and frothiness- I wouldn’t put it among my favorite books of the year or anything- but there’s something so delightful about seeing a girl enjoy being bullied by the villainess character she stans that I gotta throw it a little love. It soothed me when I needed some soothing.

The little details- like the fact Rei knows a ton about the game's backstory because she's studied it in order to write a VERY detailed fanfic about Claire rising to power and becoming a REAL villainess post-game- are really what tickled me about this one.

 Some people might find the early parts of the book where Rei is just constantly proclaiming her love for Claire while Claire goes “shut up peasant! ” a bit repetitive (and too much like harassment on Rei’s part) but those aforementioned little details, as well as how Rei eventually makes it clear she’s fine with Claire not ever returning her feelings, and would even support any relationship she pursues because she just wants her to be happy, offset it for me.

The book also has a surprisingly frank and grounded conversation where Rei explains her sexuality and laments the depiction of queer people in media and how it’s not great in either of the worlds she’s lived in. Upon the girls acting briefly wary after she confirms she’s gay, she notes ”My previous world often portrayed gay people as aggressively targeting people of the same gender- this world was much the same.”

And when one of the girls assumes it’s not that Rei’s gay, it’s that ~gender doesn’t matter to her~, Rei not only clears that right up, she actually acknowledges bisexuality and how it just doesn’t apply to her!  She notes: "Bisexual people existed for one, and those who identified as gay or lesbian might not be attracted to a particular gender so much as a particular person (...) I personally, wasn't into men. Gender was definitely relevant to me".

I was definitely pleasantly surprised to see a nuanced discussion like this in a story about a lady wanting her favorite villainess to step on her! It shows that Rei’s openness about her feelings for Claire aren’t just because she enjoys seeing her flustered, but because she doesn’t want to hide in a world that would rather have her in the closet. It gives some weight to her zany love story. (And there are a LOT of hints Claire might be closeted herself).

There is one hiccup- a bit where a brother and sister are revealed to be in an incestuous relationship- they’re antagonistic but ultimately portrayed sympathetically. The story doesn’t go too much into detail about the incest beyond saying they’re in love, and this could be a reference to a common plot twist in otome games or something, but I still found it mildly distasteful and it’s worth warning about.

However, overall, I found this to be fun story and was pleasantly surprised at the parts that had some real weight to them. I’m looking forward to volume 2!

[eventual-ghoste]

TOG rambling

Hello! This post has to do with Andy and some revelations at the end of Force Multiplied. Spoilers I give aren’t super specific but they’re there, and I can’t promise they won’t bite.

This is also in response to a TOG discord question I couldn’t stop thinking about, regarding Andy’s history as compared to Nicky’s, as posited by Em | salzundhonig:

But Nicky's past as a crusader and his growth from his past was well received, surely that'll be the same with Andy right?

I apologize if these ramblings sound like a rant but I swear my intentions are in the spirit of debate/discourse, and they are not an attack on any individuals.

The TL;DR is: Andy has work to do. Hopefully Hollywood and Rucka don’t fuck that up.

Feel free to check/correct/call me out if I’ve misspoke anywhere here (I realize I still have a lot to learn) but IMHO, I don’t think a semblance of Andy’s growth will be well received. Or, at least, I’m not so certain it should be because, in the comics, I genuinely don’t think Andy has grown. At the end of Force Multiplied, she still defends her actions with the “this is how I grew up” argument, and says it was “a long time ago,” and as much as I love love LOVE Andromache the Scythian for her badassery and how she’s a vision of female empowerment, I can’t help but think about how I hear those words all the time from people defending themselves against racist and/or sexist comments from so-called bygone eras.

Wanna know a sad difference between those people and our beloved Andy? They apologize for what they’ve done, or who they were. As hollow as the words will sound, however unforgivable their actions, however self-serving the apology will be— Those Asshats apologize. Comic!Andy never does, not even when confronted by Nile, an African American woman who likely descends from slaves, and has undoubtedly experienced racism and discrimination on a regular basis. It’s been thousands of years and Andy doesn’t even know how to say sorry (if she ever does, kudos to whoever finds a timestamp/panel, and let me know!). Instead, Andy buries the truth of her actions with a load of justifications to the point that she becomes self-deprecating, calling herself “vermin,” concluding she’s no better than the apathetic, selfish, evil POS they hunt. She may have spent the past millennia with TOG, trying to make things right but then—

But then she gives up. She’s tired. She resigns because she doesn’t have it in her anymore to fight the injustice she once willingly and self-servingly participated in. So, on top of being incapable of apology, Andy also doesn’t vow to do better. She doesn’t accede to change.

If there is one reason for why “The Old Guard” is a fucking absolutely shitty title, is that it refers to people who refuse to accept new ideas and progress. We are in a fandom that has four canonically queer characters, three people of color, and two female leads! Maybe the irony is intentional but damn, why is it that Andy, PROTAGONIST #1, hasn’t completely caught up with the program?

And that brings me to why I think Andy’s reckoning will not be on the same level as Nicky’s. Because as popular as Kaysanova is, neither Nicky or Joe are the main protagonists of TOG.

We don’t follow Nicky or Joe (or Booker) into scenes. The men are strictly back-at-the-ranch, supporting characters. We follow Andy or Nile (who also have the most screen time, I believe, but fact-check me). Filmically speaking, we ought to value them with a measure of precedence. Their words and actions matter the most, especially Andy’s by nature of how everyone looks to her for guidance.

So, with all that in mind: How does one reconcile a beloved protagonist with a despicable past in slavery, of all things? In the wake of an international racial reckoning, how is a celebrated, white South African actress going to fulfill that role? How is production going to balance fantasy with reality? How are Rucka and other involved writers (Theron, Prince-Bythewood?) going to alter the original IP, while retaining the nuance of this moral quandry?

Forgive me for the overkill but: How is it going to happen?

I’m well aware that my thoughts are going down a rabbit hole, and I am definitely overthinking this, but as somebody who’s genuinely curious about whether Victoria Mahoney and the rest of the TOG crew will have the guts to confront the issue head-on, or if they’ll take the easy way out. Excise the bits that no one wants to talk about, much less watch in a feel-good film that TOG has become for many fans.

Whatever production ends up doing, I hope that 2O2G doesn’t end on a cliffhanging “pity Andromache” note because, damn, I’m gonna feel real uncomfortable scrolling through fandom posts, reading people defending slavery and giving the same “the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there” spiel, in order to protect a fictional character played by a conventionally-attractive cis heterosexual white woman.

(Also: If the past is so different from the present, why are there still calls for social justice? Why do ALL industries still lack diverse and equitable representation?)

Now, this is where I’ll go back to the original question and say: While I think Nicky functions well as an example for change/growth/redemption, I don’t think his change serves as a good comparison to Andy’s. I say this, even while I’m aware of double standards in gender, and even between the reception of gay characters vs lesbian characters vs etc. (re: I’m open to critique).

My line of thought stems from the fact that, canonically, Nicky always had Joe. The two have seemingly been inseparable from the moment they first killed each other. It’s likely that Joe would check Nicky whenever he said or did something wrong and offensive, and perhaps this symbiosis was mutual.

(I also have a feeling that many people easily disregarded the Christian/Muslim conflict because A) lack of knowledge in BOTH religions and B) the onscreen couple appear very much in love, especially when one is giving a beautiful monologue on the nature of their relationship. When we meet Joe and Nicky, we meet them at their best. Shout-out to interfaith couples who know more about this than my single (and secular) ass does, and might have more to say about this.)

On the other hand: Andy never had someone who was like how Joe was for Nicky. No one ever calls out Andy because A) she’s the oldest, B) she’s the lead, and C) her business card says ANDROMACHE OF SCYTHIA, WAR GOD. Yeah, she had Quynh/Noriko but— at the risk of yelling at Rucka for vilifying a queer woman of color (or praising him for not leaning on the stereotype of Asian passivity? idk, anyone got thoughts on this?)— Noriko is clearly not encouraging good behavior. Neither will Quynh if Netflix lets 2O2G be as faithful to the comics as TOG1 was.

Which means the Law 282 conversation might be…unavoidable? Somewhere along the line, we still end up in the hotel room with Andy, on the floor, pleading for her crew to not abandon her, even though she is the one who abandoned their cause.

This sets up a circumstance in which Fade Away might be spent trying to redeem Andy/Charlize Theron, bring her back to the “good side,” teaching her to be better— thereby highlighting her experience and “salvation,” rather than making a point of her past, and the reality of her actions. In other words, a “pity the white woman” fest.

(Because I’m crossing my fingers that TOG production/Netflix know better) In an effort to prevent that from happening, I wonder if Rucka will combine Force Multiplied with Fade Away for the 2O2G script. Given the series’ track record, I think it is feasible that FA’s release coincides with 2O2G’s, and that it finally resolves Andy. Whether by revitalizing her energy as a do-some-gooder, or finalizing her vulnerability by putting her 6,000 years to rest, thus handing off the reigns to Nile and a new generation of leadership.

The last thing I want to leave off with is: I don’t hate Andy. It’s a credit to Rucka and fellow writers (from film and fandom) that I don’t.

I might not love her character as enthusiastically as I used to, but that doesn’t mean I’m not amazed by her creation. She’s a female lead whose sexuality is not exploited by the male gaze; whose emotional vulnerability is not considered a hindrance to, nor an explanation for, her battle prowess; and whose unabashed queerness is not reinforced by cookie cutter stereotypes. Andromache the Scythian is AMAZING.

That doesn’t mean I’m going to excuse or ignore her most glaring and contemptible flaw. More than anything, I’d love to sweep her past under the carpet so that 2O2G can be problem-free. Like many people, I just want to enjoy a movie without getting triggered.

I want to see Quynh and Andy kiss and make up. I want to see Joe rocking Those Shorts, and a cheeky shot of Nicky appreciating his ass. I want to see Nile welcoming Booker back to the family again. Some form of group therapy would be chef’s kiss.

But something about glossing over/removing slavery from Andy’s narrative reeks of dishonesty, and reminds me that the (Hollywood) movie industry is full of people who do not want to be tainted with negative perceptions. Understandably, appearances are their livelihood— but that particular truth is something they still have to reckon with.

[rainystudios]

Here’s a list of resources you can use to learn more about Japanese Queer history, literature, BL, Gei Komi, Fujoshi, Fudanshi etc.

fujoshi.info

----

Edit: It’s honestly depressing that anyone I’ve seen so far who disliked this post and commented on it either went off on completely unrelated tangents, or assumed that I'm either white (I’m not) and/or not gay/queer as an excuse to talk over me. It’s extremely ironic claiming to be open-minded/progressive while removing any association of queerness from people who discuss BL/Fujoshi history as an excuse to talk over them. “You’re gonna say your as oppressed as gay people???” hello, I am a gay POC.

People who perpetuated the Anti Fujoshi narrative were terfs and you’re actually being transphobic by spreading their narratives. They call trans MLM fujoshi because they hate trans men and see them as “fetishistic” women. They don’t see trans men as men, they see them as women.

Just like how people who hate trans women call them “fetishizers” since the 1970s in western anti-trans circles. That’s it. That’s where it comes from.

These same people even censor Queer which was also perpetuated by TERFs as a means of excluding trans/nonbinary/intersex identities.

Either read the masterposts in the links or leave, but stop getting into fights with your own strawmen on my posts.

//

Sidenote, I find it interesting (and by interesting I mean disgusting & disappointing) how the term ‘Fujoshi’ has come full circle in western culture to mean: ‘rotten women, degenerates, women who ruin everything, women who are ruined/deviant/corrupted, Abusers etc. etc.’ When it originated as an overall general term for women who didn’t conform to conventional gender & heterosexual roles & standards in Japan. That was it. That’s all it meant.

They were literally considered “ruined women” not fit for marriage or regular society. It was deeply misogynistic & homophobic in root. Female fans were referred to as Fujoshi whether they were “exploitative” of M/M relationships or not. Simply appreciating or engaging in queer relationships to any degree was seen as “rotten” and deemed someone a Fujoshi. The term is NOT exclusive to people who are seen as fetishizing said content/relationships. It’s a reclaimed term still actively used to this day in Japan.

Western fandom has taken this reclaimed word that comes from Japanese context & culture, and weaponized it all over again. To the point where people don’t even remotely know what it means in historical terms and throw it around with smug abandon. To the point where if they saw a Japanese person use it, would likely unleash a full-scale hate campaign against them. I don’t know if some newer western self identified Fujoshi are somehow using the term wrong as well but I’m talking about the actual REAL original meaning & context that has only become present day warped in western fandom, and is used to attack women & lgbt+ ppl who dare mention the term. (Or label them as such to deem certain ppl as fandom undesirables.) It’s embarrassing.

I’ve literally seen people say ‘time to reclaim X series from the Fujoshis! :^)’ When the original author of said work they’re celebrating... Would be considered a Fujoshi...

Fujoshi isn’t synonymous with ‘exploitative nasty straight women’. 

Many of these women were & are queer themselves and “BL”, Yaoi & Yuri works are all a means to explore gender identity, sexuality, empowerment, etc.  Lots of iconic shojo series overlap with themes present in a lot of these works too. It’s not a coincidence (Utena, Sailor Moon, Fruits Basket, etc.) 

Many people I know personally who also grew up with BL works, including myself later discovered “Oh I’m bi, I’m genderfluid, I’m nonbinary, I’m trans, etc.” The past few decades BL has still been ‘taboo’ for having queer relationships, but at least in western culture it was a “safe” way to engage in these stories when LGBTQ+ media was actively shut out from main stream media. People didn’t pay attention to manga or comics, so buying them, borrowing them, reading them could be done almost in plain sight. While most of us didn’t identify/call ourselves Fujoshi we’d still be considered Fujoshi, make sense?

I implore you all to at least do some research and read academic articles BY Japanese women & other older fans about these topics before subscribing to the misinformed hate-wagon and bastardizing a non-western term beyond recognition.

I also find it worth mentioning that Fujoshi & Fudanshi both refer to women & men respectively who are “corrupt/rotten/disposable” for enjoying M/M relationships in any fashion. Sexualizing men is seen as inherently negative. 

(This is a side topic but there is even a whole paper (I dont think it’s been published yet? I know this because I attended a conference where she presented last month) done by Kazumi Nagaike who found that there are self identified Fudanshi men who identify as straight & read BL manga because its the only media in which they can experience a male character receiving romantic affection, attention and being comforted and cared for lovingly) They actively hide it though because it would be seen as shameful. Fujoshi & Fudanshi culture isn’t as shallow & degenerate as these westerners make them seem.)

But, there is no mainstream term (if any) for individuals who write about/enjoy or sexualize F/F relationships, and if there IS a term I’ve never seen anyone use it or make a big fuss over it to remotely the same degree. No “lets reclaim these yuri/lesbian characters from those nasty men >:)” large scale campaigns. It’s always women & queer fans that get thrown under the bus.

Here’s a great master post with numerous sources and further in depth explanations I would just end up copypasting so here’s the link instead

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Let’s talk about the B in LGBTQ. A recent CDC poll found that 5.5 percent of women and 2 percent of men aged 18-44 identify as bisexual, which is significantly higher than the percentage of women and men who identify as lesbian/gay (1.3 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively). Even many people who don’t identify as bi have swung both ways at least once: 17.4 percent of women and 6.3 percent of men age 18-44 surveyed have had some same-sex contact.

Yet we don’t hear all that much about bi rights. But bisexual people still face discrimination, often from unexpected sources. Here are just a few of them.

Mental Health Professionals

YouTube vlogger Connor Manning recounted an awful encounter with a therapist who told him that he isn’t really bisexual. Instead of offering him proper treatment, the therapist spent a half hour trying to convince him not to call himself bi.

About the incident, Connor says,

What if I was someone who was freshly questioning their sexuality? …For a lot of people, especially those seeking help for their mental health, these things are an issue and they’re confusing and scary. To have someone who’s supposed to be a resource I can trust, someone I can open up to, try and invalidate my identity was really deeply sad to me. I also talked to a few people about it after the fact and they told me that this is something that happens all the time, unfortunately.

Research confirms this. A 2007 study published by Columbia University Press found that more than a quarter of therapists assumed their bisexual clients needed therapy for their sexuality. About a sixth saw bisexuality as a symptom of mental illness. Seven percent of therapists in the study tried to convert their bisexual clients to heterosexuality; 4 percent tried to turn their bisexual clients gay or lesbian.

Unfortunately, the misconception that bisexuality isn’t a real, unique sexual identity is very common. It’s so common that bi rights activists have an expression for it: bi erasure. Bi erasure is pretty much what it sounds like: Insisting that bisexuality isn’t real and that bisexuals are “really” just confused straight or gay people.

Faith Cheltenham of BiNet USA says that bisexuality is often subsumed under ‘gay’, but in reality “being gay is as different from being straight as being bi is. It’s not being half straight, half gay… you’re going to have a completely different life cycle experience from your gay peers.”

A young bisexual person going through that unique life cycle might feel lonely and confused and seek a therapist for help. If that therapist just turns around and tries to suppress their sexuality, it’s devastating.

What’s especially alarming about this is the fact that bisexuals (especially bisexual women) suffer from mental health problems at a higher rate than the rest of the population. They need help more often, but they’re less likely to get it if they have to fight uphill just to have their sexuality acknowledged as real.

Immigration Officials

Since 1994, United States immigration policies have recognized persecution for LGBTQ status as grounds for asylum. However, it’s not always easy for bisexual people to gain asylum. In correspondence with Unicorn Booty, Apphia Kumar, a bi rights activist, wrote that Immigration officers aren’t properly trained to handle bisexual asylum seekers, and often don’t understand it. “They have the incorrect perception that bisexuality is a choice or can be hidden in the face of persecution or that our identities depend on the gender of our partners.”

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit denied a bisexual Jamaican man asylum on the grounds that the man wasn’t “really” bisexual. Why not? Because he was married to a woman, even though he had dated men before and had been repeatedly assaulted for having sex with men.

Claiming that someone isn’t “really” bisexual because they’re currently an opposite-sex relationship is like claiming that someone isn’t really bilingual because they only speak one language at a time. It’s a ridiculous attitude based on broken logic. But immigration officials, even well-meaning ones, reinforce this misconception. Via email, Kumar noted that immigration lawyers often don’t understand bisexuality or they don’t consider it strong enough for an asylum claim, so “to increase the chances of someone getting asylum, they advise the asylum seeker to apply as gay or lesbian. This in fact increases the trauma of invisibility and doesn’t allow us to be our true selves in the long run.”

Their Partners

Bisexual people face a higher rate of intimate partner violence than straight or gay people. According to a 2010 survey by the CDC, a staggering 61 percent of bisexual women are raped, physically abused and/or stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, compared to 44 percent of lesbians and 35 percent of heterosexual women.

Bisexual men face unusually high rates of domestic violence as well: The number is 37 percent of bisexual men, compared to 26 percent of gay men and 29 percent of heterosexual men. Interestingly, the majority of this violence is coming from an opposite-sex partner. Ninety percent of bisexual women report being abused only by a male partner, and 79 percent of bisexual men report being abused by female partners.

Why is the rate so high? LGBTQ-rights activists say it comes from cultural stereotypes that paint bisexual people as immoral and undependable. Queer activist Lola Davidson writes, “A big factor of violence towards bisexuals comes from the oversexualization of bisexuality in the media and pornography. Bisexuals are often portrayed as very promiscuous and morally-ambiguous, often cheating on their partners or threatening their identity in some way.”

Stephanie Farnsworth also believes that anti-bisexual domestic violence comes from insecurity and fear of infidelity. She writes, “Checking through messages, demanding that no alone time is spent with a person of any gender and isolating one from friends suddenly becomes the norm because bisexuality is still read as wanting to have sex with anyone and everyone even though this disregards the logic that no one would ever expect a heterosexual person to fancy everyone of a different gender to them.”

We can find an example in this in the allegedly abusive relationship between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard and the media’s trashy response to it. Gossip rags suggested that Depp’s violence stemmed from Heard’s bisexuality, that he was afraid she would cheat on him with a woman.

Sadly, when bisexuals are abused, they might not have anywhere to go for help. At a Bisexual Community Issues Roundtable at the White House, one bi survivor of intimate partner violence told a heartbreaking story about being rejected by a battered women’s shelter:

The shelter staff told me I didn’t belong there, that they only served women abused by male partners. They referred me to a new gay community anti-battering project. That group also turned me away, saying that I was bisexual, not gay, so they couldn’t help me. What I felt too angry and defeated to say back then was, “Why can’t services be designed with bisexuals in mind? If we design services sensitive to bisexuals, they end up being responsive to both heterosexual and gay people, too, don’t they?”

The Media

Unfortunately, the media does a lot to reinforce negative stereotypes about bisexuality.

On television and in film, bisexual characters are usually portrayed as schemers, manipulators, and hedonists. Depraved bisexuals are so common in fiction that they even have their own TV Tropes entry. Here are just a few well-known examples from the list of evil, unhinged, monstrous bisexual characters:

Obviously, it’s not inherently wrong to portray a bisexual character as a bad person. But it’s a problem when an overwhelming number of dramas associate bisexuality with evil.

That Depraved Bisexual trope mostly applies to male characters. Female bisexuality is often presented as a performance meant to titillate men, or a way for a woman to sow her wild oats before settling down and having a “real” relationship with a man. The Daily Beast writes:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to unpack the appeal of this falsified narrative of bisexuality. The concept of a bisexual or lesbian woman who needs to be “saved” from her own sexuality is essentially a revamping of the classic damsel in distress narrative, with the male character’s conquering masculinity cast in the role of hero. The character of the bisexual woman offers the potential for a killer combination of girl-on-girl action paired with the possibility of heterosexual redemption.

But it’s not all bad. We’ll always have Darryl, the goofy, paté-loving boss on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.

Non-fiction isn’t much better than entertainment media. Bi erasure abounds here, as news publications and biographers have a hard time acknowledging that bisexuality even exists. Many real-life bisexuals, past and present, end up referred to as either straight or gay. When actress Amber Heard announced that she had a girlfriend at a GLAAD event in 2010, the press called her a lesbian.

When actress Anna Paquin discussed her marriage to actor Stephen Moyer, Larry King asked her some really clueless questions:

King: “Are you a non-practicing bisexual?”

Paquin: “Well, I am married to my husband and we are happily monogamously married.”

King: “But you were bisexual?”

Paquin: “Well, I don’t think it’s a past-tense thing.”

Larry King: “No?”

Larry King, syndicated talk show host, holds a weirdly common misconception that bisexuality means constantly having sex with men and women simultaneously.

The LGBTQ Community

The queer community treats bisexuals like a redheaded stepchild. Gays and lesbians often have the same negative attitude toward bisexuality that straight people do. A survey published in the The Journal of Bisexuality found that bisexual people receive only a little less discrimination from gays than they do from straights.

Bisexuals make up about half of the queer community and have always played a significant role in the LGBTQ rights movement, but they receive disproportionately little support in return. In Forty Years of LGBTQ Philanthropy: 1970-2010, Funders for LGBTQ Issues reports that bisexuals receive the least amount of funding out of all targeted LGBTQ sub-groups, less than 0.1 percent. Gay men received the most funding.

Back in 1999, Dan Savage told gay men not to get into relationships with bisexual men. Savage has softened toward bisexuals since then and insists he’s not biphobic, but in a more recent thinkpiece, he totally dismissed the concept of biphobia and suggested that bisexuals were to blame for discrimination against them because they weren’t out enough. Savage also wrote that it is “difficult for me to accept a bisexual teenage boy’s professed sexual identity at face value.” That’s not very different from clueless straight people who think that gay teens are just going through a phase. Coming out as bi is hard enough without getting shade from the people who are supposed to be your allies.

Bi people have to fight to make their voices heard in the queer rights movement. When they express their sexuality, they are often met with hostility. Bi activist RJ Aguiar says that when he wore his #StillBisexual shirt to the 2016 LA Pride Parade, he was “met with a lot of silent, sideways looks, and even the occasional remark like, ‘What are you doing here? This isn’t for you. Go home.’ “

Telling a bisexual person that they’re not welcome at an LGBTQ Pride Event is appalling. The queer community has to do better, and stop trying to chase the B out of LGBTQ.

[queermediastudies]

Do you listen to Girl in Red?

Do you listen to girl in red? This question isn’t necessarily asking what you think it may be. It actually means something more along the lines of “are you a lesbian?” or a “woman who likes women?” But why is that? Like most people, queer folks have often turned to musicians and their work for things like self recognition or to find community. This is a fact brought up by Moore (2012) when discussing how gay men “idolize divas”. This want for self recognition and community building can sometimes lead queer folks to listen to queer artists, such as Lil Nas X. Kwateng (2021) notes that Lil Nas X is normalizing queerness through his work. In addition, she states that “he’s not apologizing for who he is and, in fact, touts it defiantly as a signal to his listeners to do the same” (Kwateng, 2021). This normalization and call to listeners to “do the same” is mirrored in girl in red’s music. Girl in red herself is a lesbian, and in her music she openly sings about past romances in a way that is so real it genuinely resonated with the lesbian or women loving women (wlw) community. It resonated so much that asking the question “do you listen to girl in red?” stopped just being about if you listen to her music but instead became a way to ask someone about their sexuality without having to explicitly say it. The question became a queer identifier and girl in red became a queer icon.

The popularity of this queer identifying question sparked other similar questions such as “do you listen to Mother Mother?” which asks if one is nonbinary. And “do you listen to Sweater Weather?” which signals bisexuality. Why is this a thing though? Can’t queer people just ask others if they’re queer explicitly? Well, the use of musicians/music as queer identifiers may be more safe. Since the original question is from lesbian tiktok and the others stemmed from other queer tiktok communities it may not necessarily be something that individuals from outside those queer communities may know of, therefore protecting the individual asking the question from potential homophobic or transphobic black-lash that may happen if they were to ask the question explicitly. So, my question to you all is, who do you listen to?

References

Kwateng (2021). “DaBaby, Lil Nas X, and Homophobia in Hip Hop.” TeenVogue.

Moore (2012) Tina Theory: Notes on Fierceness

[breeeliss]

I've been using Doe and Stag because I thought that it was better for bisexual people to have their own terms instead of borrowing the ones lesbians were using. I get that it's not wrong to use them but I always thought it was just bisexual people wanting to have their own terms since they've always been two separate identities.

well the funny thing is that the separation between women who were only attracted to other women and women who were attracted to women and other genders wasn’t really a point of focus until the rise of lesbian separatism and identity politics. 

lesbian and sapphic were terms that mainly referred to women who slept with women and that was it. before lesbian and sapphic, “tribade” was the word of choice during the 1600s to the 1800s, and it came from the word “tribadism” which literally means scissoring, i.e. the sexual act. so tribade, lesbian, and sapphic weren’t really identities so much as they described women who had sex with and had relationships with other women. there was no distinction besides that. 

the first time bisexual was used was in Charles Gilbert Chaddock’s translation of Psychopathia Sexualis which was one of the first books written on sexual pathology in the 1800s. before this, bisexual was usually used to mean hermaphroditic, usually in reference to plants. this was the first time the word was used in reference to people who were attracted to multiple genders. this wasn’t an identity yet. bi/lesbian women were always in a shared community and they organized and convened under “lesbian.” before the 60s, when studies were talking about lesbians, they usually meant all sapphic women. and of course when butch/femme started cropping up in gay bars circa the 50s and 60s, bi women were at those bars, in those spaces, using those words. 

it wasn’t until monsters like sheila jeffreys and all the other cis white female lesbian separatists popped up in the 70s and coined the term “political lesbian,” i.e. women who don’t fuck or fuck with men. it was seen as necessary for women to only engage with women who have cut all their ties to male privilege. this included cutting out bi women (bc they fucked men), trans women (bc they were thought to still be men), queer women of color (bc of their activist work with men of color and their inability to exclude men from their politics), and a whole other slew of marginalized identities. 

((and for a quick bit of irony: lesbian separatists often critiqued the use of femme/butch by lesbians as well because they felt it was a symbol of oppressive patriarchal standards and a way of replicating heterosexuality)). 

so of course right around when the stonewall riots were going on, bi groups started appearing because they were effectively shut out of both gay and straight communities. LGB created the distinction between lesbians and bi people. and if you skip to now, whenever people do research on the history of lesbian identities, they read “lesbian” as “women who are only attracted to women” and assume that bi women are excluded from that history when in actual fact they were right smack in the middle of it the entire time. that’s where people on tumblr get mad at bi women for “co-opting lesbian terms” and “stealing from lesbian history.” 

doe/stag were coined as a way to mirror femme/butch because bi women erroneously think that femme/butch are not part of their history. the fact that bi women feel the need to come up with/use doe/stag and steer away from butch/femme is the exact kind of thing TERFs and lesbian separatists wanted to accomplish in the first place. they wanted to treat bi women like traitors who would not relinquish their heterosexual privilege and thus posed a threat to lesbians everywhere (which, needless to say, is horse shit). 

so all that to say, it’s not better for bi people to come up with their own terms because butch/femme were terms used by bi women since their inception. you don’t have to feel like you can’t use those words as if they’re not yours because they are yours and they are a part of your history. anyone who attempts to make bi women feel guilty or wrong for identifying as butch/femme are likely regurgitating TERFy rhetoric they’ve found floating around the internet without realizing it. 

sources: [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] 

EDIT: lol i totally forgot to source sheila jeffreys’ fabulous terf bs: [x]

EDIT (2): MORE sources on bisexual movements since people seem to be dead set on pegging me as a lesbophobic bi: [x] [x] [x] 

[garetthawke]

i fucking DESPISE when people say "most of m/m shipping fandom is queer" in defense of gay fetishization being brought up...especially when it's denying the comparison to lesbian fetishisim by trying to claim one is all straight men and the other is "mostly queer." like?? if a queer man participated in lesbian fetishization y'all would NOT be like "oh it's okay, he's queer!" but the second that women get called out, suddenly it's an impenetrable defense??

and look, i get it. a lot of m/m shipping is the result of women's sexualities being acknowledged, normalized, and accepted for the first time. it's important. I'm not invalidating that or decrying shipping.*

BUT. if we can't have serious discussions about how women's sexualities are not totally free of the same exact fetishy pitfalls as men's have, we have a fucking problem.

and I'm not claiming gay fetishization is even as systemic or normalized as lesbian fetishism; trust me, as a lesbian, i know it's not. but just because you can't compare that aspect doesn't mean i don't know gay men who have been just as harmed as i have on a personal level by fetishism, and there is a very realistic fear that with the absolute refusal to accept criticism on this section of mainstream porn, hiding behind a shoddy defense of "queer," that we are headed to a place where the comparisons of gay fetishism become justifyably comparible to lesbian fetishism.

and we do not need to ignore the problem until it gets to that point. if people won't listen now, why will they then?

and to top it off, even if we want to disclude the possibility of queer people participating in fetishism...the word "most" still matters. the people impacted by the fetishism of straight women still matter, and it's still a problem that deserves fucking discussion instead of a brush off.

i don't fucking care if you think the comparison of the few straight women in shipping fandom to the widespread lesbian fetisization from straight men isn't comparable at all; my solidarity will have me continue making the damn comparison because I'm sick to DEATH of y'all protecting these straight women from these discussions behind your sheild of "but most of us are queer."

the ones who aren't need to be held fucking accountable for their behavior, period. it has an effect that's NOT erased by all the queer people who share the fandom. and if we can't even hold a discussion about them without you all popping in to act like they basically don't exist among the numbers of queer women in fandom - how very little do you all care about gay men then that we could even trust your asses to not be perpetrating the same harm?

people act like being queer and/or a women is a bulletproof defense for harmful behavior when it comes to sexuality, like it's anti-progressive to suggest they could do the same kind of harm straight men do. it's the fucking opposite.

it's NOT feminist to put women's sexualities on a pedestal, to behave like they should have free reign where they wish and that harm is inconsequential because of a history of repression. feminism is understanding that women's sexualities are equal to men's - in that they are capable of the same fetishization and harm, and that the liberation of women's sexualities comes with the same power towards minority groups as men's. white women have as much power to fetishize black people as white men, and straight women have as much power to fetishize gay people as straight men do. and it's equally as problematic, no matter your history with repression. you don't get a free pass to fetishize just because for the first time you don't have to hide it, that's a ridiculous argument.

and back to the point...the same can be said for queer folks. with us it's less about us having power over others, and more about the ability to play into the existing power structures maintained by straight people. men attracted to women can 100% play into the oppressive structures that target queer women, regardless of their queer orientation. vice versa for queer women attracted to men.

queerness is not a defense. if gay men call out certain fetishistic behaviors, that is not something that calls for ANY kind of defense. what it calls for is self examination of how you might be perpetrating existing power structures against them held by straight people with your behavior, queer or not. if you find yourself imitating and defending the behavior of straight women towards gay men...there is likely a problem. if you think your behavior is only defensable by the fact that you're queer...there is likely a problem.

deflection of straight women's behavior by the amount of queer people in fandom is not tolerable. defending your own behavior solely on the basis of not being straight is also not tolerable.

concern with the amount of queer people in shipping fandoms should have never even risen as a concern in the first place. gay men should have been heard when they brought up how they were being hurt, but that's not what happened. and frankly, the comparison to lesbian fetishism was first brought up not by them, but against them; as proof that their feelings on being fetishized were invalid, because their treatment wasn't "as bad" as ours.

if gay men want to compare themselves to lesbians who are fetishized, i think they're at the point to have earned it; because i would rather they use us to force a little compassion out of your self centered hearts, than for you to use us as an excuse to ignore gay men to do whatever you want.

*i am adding this to say, because I KNOW someone will get defensive and misinterpret, that i am not against m/m shipping or calling all of it fetishistic; i am referring to discussions calling out specific behaviors and tropes used too often in shipping fandoms that are fetishistic and homophobic.

[letterboxd]

Pride: 25 Queer Films To Love.

Dating Amber writer and director David Freyne introduces our London correspondent Ella Kemp to 25 of his favorite LGBTQIA films.

A coming-out, coming-of-age film, David Freyne’s Dating Amber follows “baby gays” Eddie (Fionn O’Shea) and Amber (Lola Petticrew), who act as each other’s beards in order to stop speculation about their sexualities. Released on Amazon Prime Video in the UK for Pride month, it’s winning praise from Letterboxd members as a “charming” and “gentle” comedy-drama “full of loveliness that extends beyond the Irish accents”.

Lola Petticrew and Fionn O’Shea as Amber and Eddie in ‘Dating Amber’.

As the number of films by and about the gay and trans community expands, we asked Freyne if he could narrow down a list of ten favorites for us. The answer was no—instead, we got 25!

“There are so many extraordinary queer films beyond this list, but all of these films just really affected me when I saw them. Some were the first time I saw queerness on screen, while I deeply identified with others. And, as a filmmaker, each of them makes me braver to fight to tell stories that aren't always easy to get made.

“They are in no particular order because I don’t want to bump into Barry Jenkins (which is obviously going to happen) and have to explain that he is number five on that list (that he will definitely read) for no specific reason. It’s just a technicality.”

David Freyne’s 25 Favorite LGBTQIA+ Films

My Summer of Love (2004) Directed by Paweł Pawlikowski

Paweł Pawlikowski’s film feels like a dream that sweeps you up along with it, helped along by incredible early performances from Natalie Press and Emily Blunt. The hypnotic use of Goldfrapp's ‘Lovely Head’ is probably my favorite use of a song in any film ever. Their drug-fuelled dancing was a massive inspiration for Eddie and Amber’s baby steps into Dublin’s gay scene in Dating Amber.

Weekend (2011) Directed by Andrew Haigh

I never fail to cry buckets at the end of this heartbreaking gem. It’s small in the best sense of the word. Two people fall in love over one intimate weekend. Their gayness is both incidental and totally fundamental. It’s so delicate and moving. Andrew Haigh is a master.

But I’m a Cheerleader (1999) Directed by Jamie Babbit

Jamie Babbit’s debut is a brilliant, campy comedy about a cheerleader sent to a conversion therapy camp. I love it for all the reasons many critics (at the time) disliked it. It is subversive, quirky and defiantly upbeat. And it stars Natasha Lyonne and Clea Duvall. Enough said.

Paris is Burning (1990) Directed by Jennie Livingston

I’m not saying anything new when I say that Paris is Burning is necessary viewing. It’s a hilarious, moving and eye-opening look at the (mostly) Black trans women in New York’s ball scene. It is a glimpse into the lives of these extraordinary people who risked everything to live authentically, for themselves and each other. And at a time when our trans family is so under attack, it is vital to see such iconic figures from our community. You’ve probably seen it. Re-watch it. Also those end notes will make you cry.

Happy Together (1997) Directed by Wong Kar-wai

As with all Wong Kar-wai’s work, it is jaw-droppingly gorgeous. It’s a tough watch, a portrait of a toxic, failing relationship. But it looks beautiful. They’re miserable and co-dependent. It’s abusive and awful. But it’s great. It really is a great film. I’m not selling this one well. Just watch it.

Moonlight (2016) Directed by Barry Jenkins

Definitely worth watching after Happy Together. Not just because it will make you feel better, but because Barry Jenkins has noted it as a big influence. Also, Moonlight is a masterpiece. You know that, of course. Side note: I realize I’ll never be able to create a hand-job scene as powerful and tender as Jenkins did here, but, in Dating Amber, I made three comedy hand-jobs. Take that Jenkins!

God’s Own Country (2017) Directed by Francis Lee

You can feel Francis Lee in every frame of this film. It’s personal filmmaking at its very best, with wonderful performances from Josh O’Connor and Alec Secăreanu. And it has the most beautifully romantic ending that you only realize we lack for LGBTQ characters when you see it laid out so wonderfully. When we were trying to finance Dating Amber and people suggested it was too Irish, I’d just reference God’s Own Country, which is so defiantly Yorkshire, and they’d shut up. Also, Secăreanu’s jumper with a thumb hole is my style icon. Bring on Ammonite!

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) Directed by Marielle Heller

Marielle Heller is such a brilliant filmmaker. This film is based on the memoir by Lee Israel who forged letters by famous people to sell. It’s a genre piece that feels like it could have been made in the 70s. But what I love about it the most is that it is a rare example of a film that centers the friendship between a lesbian and a gay man. Why do films usually treat us like we exist in totally separate worlds? Anyway, it’s a joyous watch.

Tangerine (2015) Directed by Sean Baker

I’m obsessed with tightly plotted films and Tangerine doesn’t waste a frame. It’s 88 minutes of pure wit, charm and entertainment in line with the best of old-school Hollywood. You instantly forget that Baker’s film is shot on an iPhone and just get swept up in the extraordinary performances of Mya Taylor and Kitana Kiki Rodriguez. It’s such a mystery they don’t work more. (Reader: it’s not a mystery. It’s because they are Black trans women, and the industry is shit.)

Portrait of a Lady On Fire (2019) Directed by Céline Sciamma

We all bow at the alter of Céline Sciamma. This film is perfection. The sparse-but-powerful use of music, exquisite photography and extraordinary performances that burn beneath the stillness. The final shots of Adèle Haenel will feed your soul for a year. (Side note: face masks have never looked so stylish.)

Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971) Directed by John Schlesinger

This was John Schlesinger’s follow up to his best-known film, Midnight Cowboy. A middle-aged gay doctor (Peter Finch), and a divorced woman (Glenda Jackson), are both in an open love triangle with a younger, bisexual sculptor (Murray Head). It’s quite low-key and far tamer now than when it was released, but it’s a beautiful film and Schlesinger’s most personal. He was one of the few openly gay directors of his time. And Jackson’s performance steals it.

Far From Heaven (2002) Directed by Todd Haynes

Todd Haynes’ stunning film will make you immediately go out and discover all of Douglas Sirk’s glorious technicolor melodramas. Julianne Moore’s performance as a wife who discovers her husband is gay will break you. Dennis Quaid is also terrific as her closeted husband.

The Watermelon Woman (1996) Directed by Cheryl Dunye

Cheryl Dunye’s low-budget debut is a seminal queer film. A video store worker and documentarian (played by Dunye) starts a new relationship while becoming obsessed with ‘the watermelon woman’, a Black actress forgotten by history. It’s lo-fi, funny and a, far too rare, film about race and sexuality.

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) Directed by Stephen Frears

It may have been the first time I saw gay characters on screen and, at the time, it petrified me. But what an amazing film about love, acceptance and the power to change. Fun fact: Daniel Day-Lewis spent a year as a tumble dryer in preparation for his role.

Beautiful Thing (1996) Directed by Hettie MacDonald

Hettie MacDonald’s coming-of-age film is so lovely, honest and tender. James Harvey adapted it from his own play of the same name. The soundtrack is almost entirely The Mamas and the Papas. I am surprised some cigar-smoking West-End mogul hasn’t attempted a musical adaptation. Or maybe they have, I don’t know.

Pride (2014) Directed by Matthew Warchus

Such a purely entertaining film while being urgent, political and deeply moving. Beresford’s script is a masterclass in plotting and if you don’t cry at the end then you are dead inside. Sorry but that’s just science. Also it has the most emotional postscript coda since, well, Paris is Burning.

Love is Strange (2014) Directed by Ira Sachs

Ira Sachs is one of my favorite current filmmakers and criminally underrated. I mean, he’s appreciated, but he needs to be lauded. Love is Strange is such a charming and quietly devastating love story about an older gay couple who lose their apartment and have to couch surf with relatives. It’s one of the most effective films in dealing with the rental crisis in big cities, something he does equally brilliantly in the follow-up, Little Men.

A Fantastic Woman (2017) Directed by Sebastián Lelio

Sebastián Lelio’s film is a beautiful story about one trans woman’s grief after the unexpected death of her older partner. But what makes this film so spectacular is the captivating performance by Daniela Vega. We need to see more of her on screen.

BPM (Beats per Minute) (2017) Directed by Robin Campillo

It’s a film about the AIDS activism of Act Up in 1990s Paris. What makes this so incredible is how joyous it is. Strobe-doused dance scenes punctuate this film that will make you want to take to the streets and fight for your rights.

The Queen of Ireland (2015) Directed by Conor Horgan

This documentary by Conor Horgan follows Ireland’s most famous drag queen, Panti Bliss (aka Rory O’Neill). It’s about his life, a legal battle (a bunch of homophobes sued Rory for calling them homophobes on national TV) and the staging of a show in his hometown. Central to all this is Ireland’s historic vote on marriage equality, something that Panti was a powerful figure in. If you want to laugh and have your heart soar in seeing confirmation of how a once painfully conservative country moved to love and equality, watch this.

The Kids Are All Right (2010) Directed by Lisa Cholodenko

Lisa Cholodenko’s feature is a warm, witty and realistic look at a lesbian couple and their children. Every performance is pitch perfect. I can’t believe it’s a decade old and that we have had so few similar films since.

Booksmart (2019) Directed by Olivia Wilde

We need more joyous films with queer leads and Olivia Wilde’s debut is just that. Set over one night of belated partying, we follow best friends Molly and Amy (Beanie Feldstein and Kaitlyn Dever), one of whom happens to be a lesbian. It is just so much fun to watch.

All About My Mother (1999) Directed by Pedro Almodóvar

I mean this list could just be an Almodóvar filmography, but All About My Mother just happened to be the first of his I saw and it blew my little gay mind. It’s simply about love in its truest sense. Almodóvar said it best with his dedication, “To all actresses who have played actresses. To all women who act. To men who act and become women. To all the people who want to be mothers. To my mother.”

Female Trouble (1974) Directed by John Waters

You can’t have a queer film list without John Waters, and this 1974 classic is my favorite of his. It follows Dawn Davenport (played by the legendary Divine) from teen delinquent to the electric chair. It’s hilarious, irreverent and distasteful in the ways only Waters can be.

Saint Maud (2019) Directed by Rose Glass

Rose Glass’s debut film isn’t out yet and so technically shouldn’t be on the list. But I saw at a festival last year and loved it, so there. It’s a horror film about a private nurse (rising star Morfydd Clark) who tries to save the soul of her deviant and lesbian patient (the always-brilliant Jennifer Ehle). It’s eerie, stylish and the sort of debut all us filmmakers wish we had. Shut up, you’re jealous!

Related content

MundoF’s Opening the Vault: a chronological history of queer interest and LGBTQ+ cinema.

Leonora’s list of Films by Transgender Writers and Directors.

Out of the Closets and Into the Cinemas!: meeting queer folks in dark rooms.

New Queer Cinema

Queer Films Everyone Must See

Queer, Black, 21st Century: A Pride 2020 List

Autostraddle’s Top 200 Lesbian, Bisexual & Queer Movies of All Time

Brianna’s list of LGBT+ Animation

[anavirable]

A semi-deep dive into the Equality Act

HR5, otherwise known as the Equality Act, is a bill in the United States that would, at a federal level, prohibit discrimination based on “sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system.” So, for example, this bill would make it illegal to deny a couple housing for being a gay couple. Which is great! Unfortunately, the implementation of the bill has a lot left to be desired.

On thing you may notice is that this bill includes sex in its added protected categories. The Equality Act correctly identifies:

(4) Women also have faced discrimination in many establishments such as stores and restaurants, and places or establishments that provide other goods or services, such as entertainment or transportation, including sexual harassment, differential pricing for substantially similar products and services, and denial of services because they are pregnant or breastfeeding. 

The Equality Act explains the struggles of LGBTQ people as:

(3) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as “LGBTQ”) people commonly experience discrimination in securing access to public accommodations [...]. Forms of discrimination include the exclusion and denial of entry, unequal or unfair treatment, harassment, and violence.

(As a side note, yes, this bill flat out calls gay people “queer” in this legally-defined acronym.)

From there, the Act refers a few times to “LGBTQ people and women” as the groups they’re aiming to protect. So far, not too bad, and this bill will help more than it hurts. It also does make some great points. For example:

(12) Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. LGBTQ people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

This correctly identifies the discrimination people experience due to failures to conform to various sex-based stereotypes. Unfortunately, the bill continues with:

(13) Numerous provisions of Federal law expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, and Federal courts and agencies have correctly interpreted these prohibitions on sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex stereotypes. In particular, the Supreme Court of the United States correctly held in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) that the prohibition on employment discrimination because of sex under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 inherently includes discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status.

Last year’s Bostock v. Clayton case was a case in which a trans-identified male sued for discrimination after being fired from his job for following the women’s dress code. The court correctly ruled in favor of the trans-identified male - this person was fired for failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes. Unfortunately, the court did not use this reasoning to support its decision. The court did not find that separate dress codes for women and men is sexist - instead, it said that it’s sexist to force a person to conform to sex-based dress codes rather than gender identity-based dress codes. It’s difficult to express how painful that is. Transphobia under these laws isn’t a crime - it’s just a form of sexism based on gender identity rather than sex. Which means any case that comes down to sexism vs “transphobia” has no real way to legally differentiate the two.

And the Equality Act reinforces this decision. The majority of the act is just rewriting the Civil Rights Act to include “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)”. Sexual orientation and gender identity aren’t even their own protected classes - they’re just legally identical to sex.

In places where sex was already a protected class - for example, in employment, the Equality Act waters down these protections:

(c) Other Unlawful Employment Practices.—Section 704(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–3(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking “sex,” the first place it appears and inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),”; and 

(2) by striking “employment.” and inserting “employment, if, in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity.”.

Now onto the most important part, the definitions. I’ll start with sexual orientation:

(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

This is fairly straightforward, assuming everyone agrees for example that “homosexuality” means “same-sex attracted.” Since the bill doesn’t further define it, the sex-based versus “gender”-based distinction is still up for debate, should it ever become legally relevant. Next:

“(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes—

     “(A) a sex stereotype;

     “(B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;

     “(C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and

     “(D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

You’ll notice that none of these are just... biological sex. The closest is “sex characteristics, including intersex traits,” and it’s listed last. You’ll also noticed that “sexual orientation or gender identity” are once again listed under “sex,” which makes most of the rest of the document redundant overkill. But, onto our last relevant definition:

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth. 

That’s right, gender identity is literally defined as “gender-related identity”! This is what people are talking about when we criticize the self-ID aspect of the law. There is literally zero way, in reality or under this law, to determine whether a person truly has the gender identity that they claim. There is literally nothing stopping “cis men” from using this federal law to access women’s spaces except for their good word. And we know how that turns out.

So, what does this cover? This applied to titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX. Most relevant to feminists would be Title 7 and Title 9.  The Rules of the bill say that, in respect to these titles:

“(1) (with respect to sex) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions; and

“(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”

This is the part where the bill finally distinguishes between sex and gender identity. The conclusion? Women only need sex-based protections for sex-based medical conditions. Sex-segregated spaces are sexist against people with a gender identity. It would honestly be so much less painful if the bill didn’t pretend like it was actually improving women’s situation. You know, like the bill literally addressed at the beginning, about how women are discriminated against in the public sphere. Now we’re somehow being sexist for wanting sex-based rights.

Anyway, the Equality Act sucks and will do more harm than good. Which is a shame, because there are definitely positives to it - namely in providing protections for same-sex attracted people. The good news is, the fight isn’t over yet. See my next post on how we could have the best of both worlds.

[bye-bi-birdie]

Every attempt by gatekeepers to veto names for "the community" just shows they don't actually want a community unless either they get to dictate who's allowed or it only contains people exactly like them.

"You can't say queer community because not everyone identifies as queer/people are uncomfortable with that term"

Well let's just assume for a minute that the person wasn't specifically referring to the community of people who do identify as queer but was talking about the whole nebulous "community" encompassing everyone who isn't straight or cis (and ignoring for now that gatekeepers would exclude large numbers of people who fit under that category as well) then what happens when we decide that is an unacceptable term? You've already shrunk the group you're calling your community down by a fair amount of people by excluding those who don't really fit into any group except queer.

Well an unfortunate number of people would be ok with that, let's move onto a pretty big one.

"You can't say gay community if you're not talking only about gay men and lesbians/you can't call yourself gay if you're not a gay man or lesbian"

This one still pops up surprisingly frequently imo. It's a favourite of terfs, although obviously scrapping queer is too, because it assumes that terms or groups can be watered down if they aren't kept to a strict set of rules and definitions. So we can't have "gay community" for non straight or cis people as a whole because that's not ok to use for bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, aromantics etc. Of course there's also the issue of whether "gay" would be a term that non cis people felt included in even if there wasn't pushback to using it. Many people who don't like queer are fans of using gay instead, terfs hate both if you're referring to a group not just including those they count as gay but it's not only terfs against it as an umbrella term. Still very divisive though not as inflammatory a word as queer.

"It's just LGBT/it's LGBT+/it's LGBTPN/etc. etc."

Many people who aren't ok with queer or gay insist it's "just LGBT" often with the hurried addition that pan and nonbinary people "go under" the B or the T respectively if they're not quite to the point (or at least not openly) of excluding those identities as well. "The LGBT community" is ideal for most gatekeepers but obviously a problem for everyone else. The + is sometimes tacked on as an afterthought to placate anyone who didn't get a letter and "LGBTPN" was a short lived attempt to show pan and nonbinary people that aspec exclusionists weren't going to turn on them and it was rather hastily discarded when it became apparent that was untrue. "LGB" is obviously only favoured among trans exclusionists and some of them blatantly prefer "LG" which really is the ultimate destination of all the gatekeeping over who's allowed in the community no matter what bi or trans or any other gatekeepers say who insist it's not the goal to be rid of all the mspec people or nonbinary people or whoever, just the "bad" ones (although normally they'd say "fake" not bad) because when you're trying to appease gatekeepers there's really no end to it.

MOGAI and (and QUILTBAG although it's seen less often) are generally at best not taken seriously, usually assumed to be full of "trenders" and at worst accused of attracting predators. "SGA" or "SGA and trans" tend to denote gatekeepers, different types depending on which they use, and have the unfortunate connotation of conversion therapy.

In the end there's never going to be a term everyone agrees on because "everyone" includes different people depending on who you ask. Denying people the ability to use a term that best describes the community they're a part of because it's "too broad" is only ever going to show that you think you can decide who gets to be in a group that there's not even any consensus about and it's going to show that your relation to that group is framed through the lense of gatekeeping.

People don't have to use queer if they're uncomfortable with it of course but it's always going to be the term I prefer because it's the most all encompassing and not focused on squishing people down into the restrictions other terms come with. If I see people talking about the queer community I know they're most likely not trying to shove anyone out so at the end of the day whether or not there's a cohesive community of any kind I'm gonna stick with the queer community.