#more cisgender people should explore their gender and sense of self

[mintedwitcher]

I just had two transphobes attempt to insult and degrade me by calling me a tranny, because I said I wasn't going to stop referring to cis people as cis. Then they got absurdly angry that I didn't react in the way they wanted when they called me a tranny. Because I've been calling myself that, proudly, for years now. I've reclaimed that term for myself, because fuck yeah I am a tranny. I think it's a funny term and I like it for myself. And these transphobes lost their goddamn minds because I didn't react the way they wanted me to.

See, this is what exposes them, though. They compared being called 'cis', a scientifically accurate term describing their relationship to their gender, to a transphobic slur, implying with that comparison that the terms were of equal moral value and impact. They're so mad about being called 'cis', because they see 'trans' as an insult, and therefore assume 'cis' is an insult. Their worst fear in this world is being assumed to be trans, or being called trans, or even being accused of being supportive or accepting of trans people. Because they see trans existence as inherently subhuman.

They don't even try to cover that up. They demand we use terms like 'normal' or 'biological' when talking about cis people, implying once again that being trans is subhuman. They cannot stand the thought that they could need to be classified in the same way that we classify transness.

This is also, btw, why their arguments and their composure absolutely shatters when you compare the terms 'cis' and 'trans' to terms like 'tall' or 'short' or 'blonde'. Because 'cis' and 'trans' are adjectives, they're descriptors, that's all they are. They're a way to classify groups of people into mostly accurate categories to make discussions simpler.

If I wanted to give a lecture about the commonality of blonde hair, for example, I would be wasting time and breath by trying to describe blondeness without using the word blonde, and I'd most likely end up accidentally excluding some types of blonde hair while accidentally including some types of hair that would be better suited under the 'redhead' or 'brunette' categories. The same can be said for discussions of gender and sex, which is the only context where these terms are actually widely used.

If I wanted to talk about cis women, I would say cis women. Because that includes all women who were born female and still identify as women now. If I wanted to talk about all women, cis and trans together, I'd simply say women. Likewise, for discussions involving only trans women, I would say trans women. Notice how in none of these circumstances anyone is being incorrectly categorised. Discussions of cis women stay about cis women, discussions of trans women stay about trans women. Discussions about women stay about women.

Categories are helpful. Adjectives are helpful. No one is hurting you or excluding you by calling you cis, unless you're not cis.

And really if you have this much of a visceral reaction to being called cisgender, maybe it's time you do some self-reflection, because you might not be cisgender.

[lokiondisneyplus]

Disney+'s Loki Season 1 was weird, wild, and wonderful; all spurred on by the god of mischief himself, as Tom Hiddleston’s Loki went to the far reaches of the MCU’s reality and back to change everything, including representation in our corner of the sacred timeline. As discussions about representation for the LGBTQIA+ community focus on seeing themselves in media, Loki’s premiere during pride month elicited discussions and excitement from fans and critics. The topic, what does Loki being bisexual. Where do we go from here has been on everyone’s mind, but the answer is simple. As Loki prepares for Season 2, it’s time for Marvel to take the next step and explore the character’s gender fluidity.

Loki’s MCU popularity is somewhat ironic given the character's original roots in the mythology. The Norse counterpart to Hiddleston’s trickster was the son of the giant Farbauti and the goddess Laufey, who managed to wiggle his way into Odin’s family. He is described as a shapeshifter; taking multiple forms like a salmon, a mare, and an old woman. Depending on the source material, Loki (much like other deities) shapeshifted and schemed his way into the myths that shape the world: When bound to a rock beneath a serpent, if the serpent drips venom on him it causes earthquakes. He sired Hel, the goddess of death, Fenrir, the wolf, and Jörmungandr — a snake eating its own tail.

Loki has counterparts in multiple other pantheons (Anansi from West African and Carribean mythology, Hermes from Greek Mythology, to name a few) but he’s front and center in Marvel and the fan dedication to the character (where else are you going to get a room full of fully grown people screaming a villain’s name?) means that Marvel can tell stories with him including stories that focus on what Loki represents in comics canon, who the character has become in the modern mythos of the MCU.

In the MCU, Loki's story is a sad one. In Thor, he discovers that he was adopted, that he will never be King of Asgard despite his brother Thor being a brute, and decides to make himself an enemy of the Gods of Asgard and the humans on earth slowly learning about what lies beyond the solar system. Outcast and alone, he becomes Thor’s primary motivation to fight, battles the Avengers and nearly takes over earth, and finally sacrifices himself to save Thor and the other Asgardians seemingly undergoing a redemption arc. In fact, Loki has had two redemptive arcs, both of which speak to people who have struggled to repair themselves and contribute to society. His story is that of someone who has always sought to accept himself — much like those in the LGBTQ+ community.

Now that his redemption is (seemingly) out of the way, there are other parts of Loki’s comic history that writers can tackle, including his shape-changing abilities and his fluid sexuality. Neither are unusual in the media (you could make an argument that Loki’s mythological arc where he gets impregnated and gives birth to an eight-legged horse is a sort of ancient world blockbuster event).

Loki being genderfluid should be Marvel’s next step in on-screen representation because all of the character’s traits point to it being the logical choice. For one thing, the story of a being who feels abandoned in their own family is one common to every sphere, but it fits in well in the LGBTQIA+ community. Statistics regarding transgender children point out that over half have ​​considered some sort of self-harm without support. Support leads to a decrease in suicidal thoughts as well as suicidal attempts. Loki never went through those things, but for many now cheering his bisexuality seeing a character with that backstory doing good and being seen in the public doing some good is much-needed representation.

In all other continuities, Loki is a bisexual genderfluid being. Using the so-called “God of Outcasts” to introduce bisexual and genderfluid characters to the MCU is a smart decision. Loki’s large fanbase puts him on avengers merchandise and front and center in Avengers canon. His villainy and transformation to anti-hero with two redemptive arcs has brought his engaging character to the forefront of his own story. As he says, he’s “writing his own destiny,” something members of the LGBTQ+ community can relate to, and he and his variants can ask the audience to question their preconceived notions of the bisexual and genderfluid community.

There are certain behaviors that come with being genderfluid. There is the notion that constraining oneself to a particular set of societal expectations of gender is ridiculous. There is a focus on individuality over conformity on such a base topic. As so many people say, gender is a spectrum and to describe individually what gender means to specific people, doesn’t do it justice.

Rather there are practices and behaviors that Marvel could study and put into stories. Loki’s change in appearance and outfits could come with new pronouns (a facet of being transgender and genderfluid, as pronouns are a source of hot debate in the cisgender community) and audiences would be more willing to accept it thanks to the dedication of his loyal fans and his anti-hero status. Loki is cunning, Loki is full of guile, and Loki has proven himself because people love the character. Villains from underrepresented groups are frequent. The audience’s love has writers wanting to explore his sympathetic backstory. That changes the equation. Members of the LGBTQ+ community understand what it’s like to be declared villains.

The show has made massive strides in representation, even casting queer actors to play Loki(s). DeObia Oparei’s Boastful Loki exemplifies just what Loki and the MCU should be striving for, representation and work — building characters who can be examples to others. Oparei went to Twitter and thanked Marvel for its work, but it’s work that must continue.

From his beginnings as a trickster god to his inclusion in the modern mythos of the MCU, Loki is a powerful figure, and the new Disney+ series has set him up to be both a real anti-hero and an embraced character. Since audiences have now embraced his sexuality, it’s time to embrace the next step and use Loki, Sylvie, and any other Loki variants to explore what being transgender, what being genderfluid, truly means in modern mythology and beyond.

Loki Season 1 is streaming now on Disney+. A second season has been announced.

[sheathandshear]

the older I get, the more I hate the whole "lgbtq+ narratives must always be #ownvoices and people can only write their own identities because anything else will be fake and fetishizing and can never capture the True Lived Experience of being xyz” because like. look. setting aside all the many, many other problems about that: this may be uncomfortable to hear if you’ve built your sense of self out of hyperspecific pride flags, but identity is subjective, and identities change. if you equate “immutably are” with “identify as at the moment of writing a thing”, then over the course of 15+ years of writing I’ve ‘been’ at various times straight, bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer, grey ace, ace-aro; femme, androgynous, cisgender, transgender, female, genderfluid, nonbinary, and now some kind of masc; she/her, zie/zir, they/them, he/him... my identity has been fluid and evolving, and at the same time, absolutely nothing fundamental about me has changed. my life experiences aren’t retrospectively radically altered the moment I change the pronouns on my twitter bio! the person writing that transmasc character six months ago is the same one writing that transmasc character today, and yet because my labels changed, the piece produced six months ago is fake but the one produced today is legit? should I be backdating my authenticity? hmm, the publication date of this fic is 21 march 2013 and at the time I thought I was entirely straight and cisgender so that queer nonbinary character is offensive appropriation; however, by 18 june 2014 I was still IDing as cis but now queer and having tentative gender feelings so was it #ownvoices then? or not officially awarded that designation until 28 aug 2015? the lesbian character written on 4 dec 2009 was #ownvoices but this was retroactively rescinded on 30 nov 2010 when I determined that I was bi... it’s silly! lgbtq+ identities are not species classifications! many people -- yes, including the ones who eventually determine themselves to be cishet -- move through different explorations and ways of understanding themselves & their relation to others, and this siloed, #HashtagIdentity way of determining who is allowed to write what manages to encourage infighting & identity policing AND squash empathy & solidarity between people with similar but not identical experiences AND erase all nuance and complexities of the lives of people whose voices it supposedly boosts so like... great job yall, definitely creating a quality environment for everyone here.

[thelostgirl21]

Pansexuality, Bisexuality, Asexuality, and experiencing sexual attraction towards a person regardless of gender...

Alright you guys, here’s the thing.

I’m seeing a lot of hurt, resentment, and misunderstanding in the pansexuality tag, coming primarily from pansexuals and bisexuals alike, and I think it’s high time we sat the fuck down together, and had a good heart-to-heart as a community.

Actually, I’m inviting asexuals to the table, too, because they happen to be much closer to a specific subset of pansexuality than a lot of people seem to believe, and might be able to offer valuable input and insight into that whole debate.

First, I know there are a lot of different views, versions, and definitions of what pansexuality is. Some identify as being sexually attracted to all gender expressions, others as being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender.

Here, I’m going to address what “regardless of gender” actually entails in terms of how one experiences sexual attraction towards another person without regard to their gender.  This is the definition of pansexuality that I wish to delve into and explore, so hopefully we may gain a broader perspective of why some of us feel that having a distinct space within the LGBTQ+ community matters.

First off, here is an especially important concept that does not seem to be well integrated for many people:

What orients human sexuality is not restricted to gender.

I repeat: What orients human sexuality is not restricted to gender.

What does it mean?

This means that every human being that do experience sexual attraction towards another human being does so according to a huge multitude of personal criteria that they perceive in another human being that - when combined together – trigger that sense of sexual attraction, and lets us perceive a person as being sexually attractive.

When we say that someone is "hot" and that “we want them"; usually, it is because there is that *special something* about the way they act, the way they move, the depth of their voice, the sound of their laughter, the mischievous glint in their eyes, their overall projected personality, how they carry themselves, their height, their weight, their confidence, their vulnerability, the shape of their forehead, their nose, the texture of their hair, the roundness of their buttocks, the culture they belong to, their intellect, etc., that is perceived as being sexually desirable traits to be found in a “mate”.

Some of these perceived traits tend to carry more weight, and thus will be taken into consideration, more than others.

However, assuming we are not asexual, we all sexually respond to an array of perceived physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual, intellectual, etc. features we see in another human being that makes us go "Yup! I wanna have the sex with you!"

For the vast majority of people, gender tends to be what they assess first - something that is significant enough to orient their sexuality - or that is, at least, perceived as being significant in some way.

For example, they will see a woman with luscious red hair, a gorgeous smile, an aura of authenticity, a resonant laughter, a soft, curvy body, freckles, a shy gaze yet a very firm and assured handshake, and their body will respond to said woman in a way that awakens some desire in them.  They will want to have sex with that woman, and they will typically appreciate that she is a woman while doing so.

Some will have a preference for cisgender or transgender women, but for the purpose of the issues I’m wishing to bring into light, please always assume that whenever I am referring to a woman or a man, this includes both cisgender and transgender individuals.

This is crucially important. Because I’ve sadly seen many people claiming that they are “pansexual” because they like every gender, even “transgenders”, while arguing that bisexuals only like “cisgender men and women”, and that makes absolutely no sense.

By doing so, you are pretending that your sexuality is “more inclusive” towards multiple gender identities, while at the same time pretending that, in order to be bisexual, a transgender woman would need to feel no sexual attraction towards other transgender men, and/or women of her own gender.

You are unwittingly relegating transgender individuals to the role of being someone else’s object of sexual desire, while not giving them the role of being the ones expressing that desire in how they identify.

The gender is “woman”.  The gender is “man”.  The gender is “non-binary”.  The (absence of) gender is “agender”.

You absolutely have the right to be exclusively sexually oriented towards men whose assigned gender at birth (usually determined by their genitalia) matches their gender identity.  

But that is a personal preference of yours in “how you like your men”.  

I know quite a few girls that are not sexually attracted to men that are smaller than themselves, and yet they are still heterosexual or bisexual.

Preferring someone whose gender matches the gender they were assigned at birth based on their genitalia is nothing wrong.

Pretending that transgender men and women should be excluded from the definition of bisexuality based on being transgender, is.  It reflects a failure to acknowledge that transgender men and women are the same gender as cisgender men and women.

So, everywhere you see me refer to “men” and “women”, please do assume that it includes both cisgender and transgender individuals.  Whenever I am talking about a specific interest in certain types of genitalia (that are associated with the gender assigned at birth vs the gender identity of a person), I will make that precision.

Otherwise men and women are men and women, period.

That being said, to go back to the notion of all the different variables influencing our sexual orientation, I believe that in order to properly understand the nuance found in pansexuality, it would be helpful to take a good look at an asexual’s experience of their own sexuality.

When people hear “asexual”, they often make the mistake of assuming that everyone that identifies as asexual are sex-repulsed, or that they can’t find pleasure in the act of sharing sex with a partner, romantic or otherwise.

All that asexuality means, really, is that the person is not sexually attracted towards other people.

It says absolutely nothing about an inability to experience sexual arousal and enjoy an active, satisfying sex life.

What it tells you, is that other people won’t be what will trigger the desire in them to have sex.

Let’s say you love ice cream!

Most of the time, you eat ice cream on your own, because you crave how good it tastes and enjoy eating ice cream for the ice cream itself.

It relaxes you, makes you feel good, and is very self-gratifying.

The sight of another person holding an ice cream cone, or even explicitly offering it to you, does not make you want to eat ice cream, however.  Your cravings for ice cream happen totally independently of how other people behave about ice cream, about you, and are not tied to the social aspect of enjoying ice cream with a partner.

You’re fine managing your ice cream eating habits on your own.

HOWEVER, sometimes, when you are with someone you strongly care about and trust, even if their presence changes nothing to your own impulses to desire eating ice cream, since eating ice cream *is* something you find personally pleasurable, you may find yourself wanting to share that pleasure with them.

You might even be open to spoon-feeding them the ice cream yourself.  Not because you are instinctively driven to eat ice cream in the company of another and share it, but because you do enjoy the whole aspect of togetherness, and the strengthening of social bonds that eating ice cream together brings you.

For sexually active asexuals, “sharing sex” with someone is often something that they will willingly engage in because they are very receptive to the feelings of intimacy and togetherness that engaging in sexual activity with someone they deeply care about - or might even be romantically engaged with - brings them.

It becomes something that is sought as a way to reinforce such social bonds, rather than an instinctive drive to have sex based on a desire that is triggered by a partner.

A human being can desire to bond with another person through something that leaves them as vulnerable and open as sexual intercourse, without perceiving the person they choose to have sex with as being sexually desirable themselves.

What will happen is that they will find ways to sexually arouse themselves through tactile stimulation, certain thoughts, and/or other ways – often rather unique to them – that they have experienced with, and they know can trigger a state of sexual arousal in themselves.

Once sexually aroused, they are free to enjoy the sexual activity in the company of someone that they care about.

In the context of a romantic relationship, there is also the aspect of empathy, of desiring to make someone they love feel good, and happy.

But the acceptance and understanding that an asexual does not sexually desire their romantic partner, and thus respecting their own limits and comfort zone in terms of how much sex they are willing and comfortable to share with a sexual partner, is absolutely crucial.

They do get something out of it, too (i.e. it’s not JUST about making the other feel better).  But the drive to “eat ice cream together” may be less than in someone that sees “ice cream” in someone else’s hands, and can barely contain their excitement and need to eat some.

Some asexuals do not ever feel comfortable having sex with other people, and that is perfectly ok, too.

But being asexual, in the context of a sexual orientation, doesn’t automatically mean being unable to sexually engage in sexual activity with others, being repulsed by it, and/or finding nothing rewarding in having sex with others.

It just means that other people are not something that orients their sexuality, and that they don’t trigger anything in them that makes them want to have sex with them.  At least, not without some secondary objective (ex: fostering a greater sense of emotional intimacy) in mind.

An asexual’s sexuality can be expressed regardless of the person.

If you can understand that, then you might understand how being pansexual feels.

As a pansexual, I experience sexual attraction to a person, but said attraction occurs regardless of that person’s gender.

I do not find women sexually desirable. I do not find men sexually desirable. I do not find non-binary gender identities sexually desirable.  I do not find agenders sexually desirable.

I can listen to a bisexual trying to explain to me what they find sexually exciting about girls, boys, agenders, etc. using terms to describe certain gendered traits.

Except I am unable to personally relate to any of the feelings they are describing.

Not because I am gender blind.

I do see your gender.

Just like I do see how tall you are, what your body type is, your hair color, your nose, etc.

And yet, people do not typically go around insisting on defining sexual orientation in terms of:

- Heterosexuality: being sexually attracted to people with different hair colors than yours.

- Homosexuality: being sexually attracted to people with the same hair color as you.

- Bisexuality: being sexually attracted to both people with different hair colors than your own (experiencing patterns of heterosexual attraction), and the same hair color as you (experiencing patterns of homosexual attraction).

- Pansexuality: Being sexually attracted to a person regardless of hair color, without experiencing any patterns of either heterosexual or homosexual attraction.

They do, however, keep insisting that another human being’s gender is one of the many traits they have - that may or may not outwardly be express - that should make you feel “something” about them.

Gender is supposed to be one of the key factors of sexual attraction that orients one’s sexuality.

But that is not always the case.  My body, my sexual impulses, instincts, or drive - no matter how you wish to call it - do not respond to gender.

And insisting that I should find anything about one being a woman, a man, or otherwise sexually attractive quickly becomes irritating.

If I were to live in a world where hair color was perceived as playing an important role in someone’s likeliness to find a person sexually attractive – and people were persecuted and discrimated against based on the hair colors they found themselves sexually attracted to – I wouldn’t feel it would be any different than the sexual orientation system we’re stuck in right now.

In terms of the genitalia that is traditionally associated with the gender assigned at birth, or even reassigned genitalia, I do not find anything remotely sexually interesting about vaginas and penises (and all their variations).

Yes, they are physically there, I can use them in the context of sexual intercourse, but they don’t offer anything more stimulating or interesting to me than what could be achieved with the use of fingers, a tongue, and/or especially toys (toys are notoriously difficult to beat in terms of functionality and versatility, actually).

Your genitalia is not about me, but about you.  I do not find your penis or your vagina sexually attractive.  They are body parts that look rather weird and funny to me (I’m including my own vagina in that assessment), and I don’t get what’s supposed to be sexually stimulating or interesting about having the opportunity to see or interact with that part of someone else’s body.

I’m not repulsed by your genitalia, but they don’t inspire me to have sex, either…

…UNTIL I’ve been having sex with the same partner for long enough that I manage to generate mental associations between your vagina or your penis with other aspects of yourself that do trigger some sexual desires in me.

My sexuality is expressed in a way that is highly empathetic.  So, as soon as I’m starting to truly bond with a partner and develop a long term connection with them, their own expression of sexual arousal will be an extremely strong trigger in terms of how sexually attractive they will look to me.

When I see my partner’s penis, it’s not the penis itself that I see.  The image that will instinctively and automatically pop into mind is the way his body lightly trembles under my touch, it’s the delicious little quiet moans and sighs escaping his lips, it’s the hungry looks he gives me, it’s the intimacy and the vulnerability behind each action, it’s the light sheen of sweat covering his skin, the rise and fall of the chest as his breath quickens, the pulse on his neck beating increasingly fast.

Every penis in the world looks to me like an oversized big toe, and they are totally irrelevant to my sexual interests, except for being “instruments” that I can play to make my partner experience heightened sensations, and bring them sexual satisfaction…  

And I can play with every instrument of origin and/or with every reassigned instrument… or none at all!  If you’d rather use toys that you control by yourself, and have me interact with the rest of your body during sexual intercourse, instead, it’s 100% fine by me.  I don’t need to get in direct contact with your genitalia to find sexual intercourse sexually satisfying, either.

As long as it remains something interactive we are sharing together, my pansexual arse will be perfectly fine!

But there comes a point where my partner’s penis no longer quite looks like “just a penis” to me - it looks like the whole experience of having sex with him.

And I’m sexually attracted to him.  I’m sexually attracted to elements of his personality, yes, but also to his body.

A bubble butt remains a bubble butt, regardless of the gender it belongs to.  And bubble butts are very sexually attractive.

You’ve got the bubble butt?  In my own personal list of personal features likely to make me perceive you as sexually attractive, bubble butts rate very high.

So, while my partner’s penis does not orient my sexuality, and I could have done with or without.  My sexual attraction towards other aspects of him (oh yeah, he’s got the bubble butt, alright!) allows me to embrace that part of his body as something “more” than “just a weird looking big toe that inflate and deflate”.

The way I feel about vaginas is pretty much the same. I don’t find them attractive or interesting, but since I’m interested in making my sexual partner feel good, too, over time I’ll learn to develop an appreciation for my own partner’s vagina.

Therefore, trying to argue that “biological sex” or genitalia should be perceived as “mattering more” or being “more relevant” in the context of describing how we experience sexual attraction towards a person than one’s hair color – and therefore, I should pay more attention to something that is traditionally being used to define gender upon birth than someone being a ginger – does not work with a pansexual that identifies as such, because they experience sexual attraction regardless of gender.

I’m not repulsed by your genitalia, I don’t desire it. What I need, what I want, is having someone close to me I can kiss, caress the curve of the small of their back, run my fingers through their hair, bite their shoulders, grab that bubble butt with both hands and feel those muscles offer some resistance against my fingers, etc.

A person’s overall body is what is perceived as being sexually attractive and will orient my sexuality.  Their genitalia, or even specific gendered traits associated with their body, not so much.

Which brings me to the infamous question pansexuals keep being asked over, and over again every time they try to tell someone that they are sexually attracted to a person regardless of gender.

“Oh, so who they are, their personality, matters to you more than what’s between their legs or how they look?”

*NOISE OF RECORD BEING SCRATCHED. *

Alright, hold on.  Are you telling me that if you remove “gender” from the equation, regarding what we can find attractive in another person, the only thing you’re left with becomes some utterly disembodied entity that is “all hearts and no parts”?

Are you telling me that gender is something so big, so powerful, that someone’s whole physical appearance become entirely swallowed by it?

Are you saying that gender has absolutely no bearings, or influence over one’s emotional, intellectual, spiritual, psychological traits?

If that is, indeed, what you are saying, how is it, then, that society keeps yapping about how men and women are supposed to think, what they are supposed to wear, what they are meant to like and dislike, what personality traits they are supposed to have and/or are more socially appropriate to express, and how their relationship dynamic is supposed to be build in terms of how male and females relate to each other?

Socially, I think we can agree that talks of gender tend to be quite prevalent, and generally, gender is an aspect being perceived as coloring every single aspect of a person…

And yet, if I’m telling you that I can be sexually attracted to a person regardless of their gender, are you really telling me that the only place where, suddenly, gender seems to be important, is in terms of what’s between the person’s leg, and how they physically LOOK?!

How does that work for you?

So, here is what appears to get really confusing for both the pansexual being asked the question, and the one asking it.

People that have a sexual orientation towards one, or even all genders, will tend to find aspects of someone being a woman, a man, non-binary, or even agender sexually attractive.

They may love all forms of possible genders expressions out there, and maybe even love them all equally and for the same overall reasons.  Their body may experience sexual attraction towards men, women, and non-binary genders equally.

But there’s something about one’s gender they still perceive as being relevant and “hot” and they will notice as being sexually desirable in relation to gender.

They can read about what’s great about dating women, men, and non-binary (assuming they are also romantically attracted to certain people), or having sex with them, and personally connect with those feelings.

They might find penises and vaginas to be sexually interesting and stimulating, and the direct contact with a sexual partner’s genitalia will be something they enjoy, cherish, and naturally seek as being a significant pleasurable part of their sexual intercourse.

Their sexual instincts, their sexual drive, etc. does respond to the gender of their sexual partner.

A pansexual that experiences sexual attraction to a person regardless of gender does not experience such a response.

And, for those of you that are sexually sensitive to other people’s gender, it can apparently seem rather inconceivable that you can be totally dispassionate about gender when it comes to being in a sexual relationship with a partner.

Whether we are talking about a quick “one-night stand” type of encounter, or in the context of a long-term romance, gender is utterly irrelevant, and not an aspect of the other person that triggers any feelings of sexual attraction for pansexuals.

It doesn’t orient our sexuality.  We have no sexual orientation and have never known what finding women, men, or other gender expressions sexually attractive feels like.

So, as we are saying “we experience sexual attraction to a person regardless of gender”, people that like one or many genders out there will naturally go for what feels familiar to them.

They try to understand how that can even be possible.

For many, especially those that feel strongly about having sex with specific gender(s), the key component associated with a person’s gender seems to be the genitalia and/or other physical traits that tend to be gendered in their eyes.

A woman will tend to have a body that is less muscular, a higher pitched voice, wear their hair longer more often, they have enlarged breasts and nipples, etc.

There is thus a natural association between “how someone looks” and “gender”.

To the pansexual, while they may “see” the elements of physical femininity and masculinity of a person’s body, their brain does not respond to those perceived “gendered traits” as something exciting or desirable.

It feels neutral, irrelevant, we do not understand why we are supposed to care about the difference between massaging a woman’s breast or a man’s chest within the context of sexual intercourse, or how it’s supposed to be really different.

Ok, yeah, there is a difference, but in terms of how my instincts prioritize that difference, it’s the same as gazing into a pair of green rather than blue eyes.

That difference is so trivial to me that it is not worth paying attention to it during sexual intercourse.

Gendered traits are not where I find my sexual inspiration.  The physical traits I do find sexually attractive tend to be perceived as being very gender neutral in the context of sexual attraction, even if most people consider them “gendered”.

Like your penis, your vagina, or any reassigned genitalia, I can learn to develop an appreciation for your masculinity, your femininity, your gender-fluidity, etc. as we go deeper into the sexual relationship and it has the opportunity to evolve.

I may not give a damn about gender sexually or even romantically, but I care about you.

I care about making you feel valued, seen, and wanted for everything you are.

I may not be sexually or even romantically attracted to every single aspect of yourself, but just like an asexual might still take the time to “share the sex” with their partner because they appreciate the feeling of intimacy and togetherness, because they want them to feel good, because finding the right balance between their own needs and their partner’s needs matter (always withing their own personal limits and comfort), and thus, they will find their own “payoff” in the pleasure in watching someone they care about enjoy themselves in such a way…

Well, I’ll gladly worship at the altar of your femininity, and make a conscious effort to develop an appreciation for the gendered aspect of who you are in the context of sexual intercourse, so I can help fulfil that particular aspect of your needs. Whereas, as I stated earlier, someone that has a sexual orientation will see a woman with luscious red hair, a gorgeous smile, an aura of authenticity, a resonant laughter, a soft, curvy body, freckles, a shy gaze yet a very firm and assured handshake, and their body will respond to said woman in a way that awakens some desire in them.  And, in response, they will want to date that woman and they will instinctively appreciate that she is a woman.

A pansexual will see a person with luscious red hair, a gorgeous smile, an aura of authenticity, a resonant laughter, a soft, curvy body, freckles, a woman gender, a shy gaze yet a very firm and assured handshake, and their body will respond to said person in a way that awakens some desire in them.  And, in response, they will want to date that person and they will instinctively appreciate who she is, but without necessarily putting any emphasis on the gendered aspects of her identity.

However, since we do see gender, we can develop an acquired appreciation for it.  It’s so far down the list of things we may consider in a partner that it does not orient our sexuality.

That appreciation will not be instinctive, but a taste we will learn to acquire and manifest for the benefit of our partner and the health of the whole relationship.

Gender may be but one of the many parts of your identity, and carry no more weight when it comes to choosing a partner than your hair color from my perspective, if that is a part of your identity you feel strongly about and tend to put at the forefront, I will thus make it one of my priorities within our relationship, too.

I can’t control how my sexual instincts respond to you.  I can’t “make myself” be sexually attracted to you being a woman.  But I can easily appreciate the aesthetic beauty of your womanhood, learn to appreciate all the aspect of being a woman that matter to you, and regularly reflect those aspects back to you in a positive, nurturing, appreciative manner.

And my compliments will be sincere, whether I find those aspects sexually arousing or not.

I experience my sexuality in a way that is one “person” away from being asexual.

So I really can’t blame those that do experience heterosexual (attracted to a gender not their own), homosexual (attracted to their own gender), or both heterosexual and homosexual patterns of sexual attraction to be confused as to what “regardless of gender” really means for some of us, and thus jump to conclusions.

“Oh, so who they are, their personality, matters to you more than what’s between their legs or how they look?”

That’s simply their way of expressing “I don’t get it.  Doesn’t everyone have a gender identity?  How can you sexually disregard gender in the way someone looks while still finding them sexually attractive?”

The mistake they are making, in asking this question, is disregarding all the other aspects of a person that plays a role in their own sexual orientation, too.

Why, as a straight woman, aren’t they trying to get into the pants of every person they perceive as being male or that identify as men?

Gender may be one of the key factors orienting their sexuality, but they also have preferences in nose shapes, height, weight, voices, accents, attitudes, etc. that will orient their sexual desires.

Our inability to feel anything attractive about a prospective partner’s gender, doesn’t remove our ability to experience attraction towards other aspects of their physicality that we find sexually attractive.

Truth is, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of straight, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, among others, naturally prioritize personality and the overall “vibe” they get from a person over their physical looks and what’s between their legs.

But, just as someone who is gay may have no idea what being pansexual feels like…  A pansexual has no clue how being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (in the sense of being attracted towards own gender and other genders) truly feels like.

We don’t relate to gender in the same way other people seem to.  At least, when I hear them talk about gender and describe how they feel about men, women, and others, that feeling doesn’t seem to match my own experience.

So, being continuously asked to define our sexual orientation in terms of gender attraction – when it has no bearings on our sexuality – at some point, might end up being perceived as some form of harassment and micro-aggression for us, especially when we are asked to “justify” how that can even be possible, and have people argue that because everyone has a gender, then we are all attracted to their gender by default.

(Yeah, everyone has a thumb by default, and no one is forcing me to define my sexual orientation by the fact that I’m sexually attracted to their thumb.)

So, imagine our relief when, suddenly, the focus is driven AWAY from people’s gender.

When we hear “Oh, so who they are, their personality, matters to you more than what’s between their legs or how they look?”, we are suddenly being offered the possibility of being sexually oriented towards a person based on something that is not defined by the one asking the question as “predominantly gendered”.

We very naïvely assume that, if the other person is asking the question, it is because heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals feel that a person’s looks, and/or their genitalia, typically matter more to them in terms of how they experience sexual attraction, than the non-gendered aspects of their personality.

If you ask someone who is straight “Does someone’s personality, who they are at the core, matters more to you than what’s between their legs or how they look?”

They may very well answer “yes”, because they will only think about the current context of that question, and find truth in it.

If you ask me, as a pansexual, the same question, my first instinct is going to be to also answer “yes”.

However, if I take a moment to fully analyse that question, the record goes to a scratching halt!

Not every pansexual has the required amount of patience and personal insight to dissect everything that is sadly implied by such a loaded question, and will instead focus on the overwhelming relief of having finally found an “out” from a system that doesn’t fit them.

They will embrace that suggestion, think that this sets them apart from those who do respond to gender as part of their sexual orientation, integrate it as a key concept of their whole sexuality, and start proudly declaring that they are pansexual, because they are sexually attracted to “hearts, not parts!”

Doing so, they sadly attract the ire of straight, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals that FINALLY have their own moment of epiphany and go “Wait a minute?!  Are you saying that all that matters to us in a sexual partner is what’s between their legs?! Are you saying we are all physically-obsessed whores that only care about looks without giving a damn about personality?!  I may be bisexual, but if a man has an awful personality, there’s no way I’m going to be having sex with him!  Get off your high horse, you pompous, higher-than-thou pricks!”

Suddenly, they all seem to forget where the suggestion that we were caring more about “hearts” than “parts” came from in the first place, and then resent us for it!

Yes, it is absolutely wrong to define our sexual orientation in such a way!

“Hearts, not parts” has nothing to do with pansexuality.

But just like I won’t blame people with a gender-based sexual orientation to ask the wrong types of question based on their own confusion and inability to spontaneously relate to what being pansexual feels like; I won’t blame pansexuals for having made the mistake of appropriating that slogan to try to escape a system that suffocates them, without realizing that they’ve failed to clearly help them understand what pansexuality is like.

I will correct them, and try to make fellow pansexuals understand that, while “hearts, not parts” may reflect something they consider as being an important aspect of their own sexuality, it is not what sets them apart from people with a gender-based sexual orientation.

Pansexuals like parts just as much, or as little, as people identifying as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc.  

How much importance we instinctively assign to the physical appearance of the person we are sexually attracted to does not say anything about how we respond (or, more accurately, fail to respond to) gender.

All we are saying is how physically vs mentally and/or emotionally we tend to be sexually orientated towards prospective sexual partners.  This is an aspect of one’s sexuality that can be applied to all, regardless of how they feel about gender.

Even in the context of demisexuality, parts usually do matter.  Experiencing secondary sexual attraction, only after a strong emotional bond has been formed with someone, won’t remove the aspect that the demisexual then needs to experience a sense of secondary sexual attraction towards the other person.

If a demisexual wanted to have sex with every single person they emotionally connected with first, they’d be unable to form any sincere, trusting, platonic friendships.

Not all demisexuals are interested in being in a romantic relationship, either.  They can be sexually attracted to a very close friend they would trust with everything they are, yet don’t experience any desire to develop a romance with or become sexually exclusive.

The nature of the strong emotional bond that occurs before secondary sexual attraction comes into play can greatly vary from one demisexual to the next.

In any case, prioritizing a person’s personality over looks in one’s relationship is something that can occur regardless of sexual orientation and even romantic inclinations.  It does not set pansexuality apart.

What sets us apart, is our inability to perceive gender as something of any significant influence in the way we experience sexual attraction towards another person.

A pansexual grows up in a world that uses a classification system to define sexual orientation that feels confusing to them.

They see people around them getting all excited about a boy or a girl in school, expressing what they feel is attractive about them being a boy or a girl (back when I was a teenager, the binary was extremely predominant, so at least that aspect is slowly changing) without feeling any inclination either way, or even understanding what parts of them being male or female is supposed to be sexually (and/or romantically) exciting.

They will learn to parrot what they hear from others, to use other people’s terms to describe their own sexual attraction. They are so convinced that everyone MUST have a sexual orientation that they will be actively (and sometimes, desperately) looking for it.

They may identify as straight given they found themselves sexually attracted to someone who was a girl, and thus deduce that must mean that they “like girls”.

But then, another person they feel sexually attracted to a year later happens to be a boy…  So, are they bisexual instead?

Except, they no longer feel anything significant about girls in general…  Does that mean they are gay?

Then, they meet another girl, and feel sexually attracted towards her – same they did with the first girl.

Were they really bisexuals, but have just “forgotten” about it?

Except now that they are attracted to that girl, they feel nothing remarkable about boys in general, either…

What the hell is going on?!

We find people sexually attractive typically on a case by case scenario.  We know, deep down, we aren’t opposed to having sex with people from any gender, but we don’t find members of that gender sexually attractive per say.

If we look at our history, we will find people from all gender identities that we may have been sexually attracted to at different points of our lives, but we never feel like their gender mattered more than the color of their eyes or that there was a sense of attraction that came from how we perceived or acknowledged their gender.

Except we are constantly told about how great and desirable women, men, and other genders are.  

But no matter how much efforts to make to “feel something” about people’s gender, we don’t get it.

With time, we tend to feel like an alien within society and sadly, even among the LGBTQ+ community.  We internalize the way we process our sexual orientation and our lack of gender orientation as meaning there is something wrong with us, that we are “missing parts” that should be there, because every definition we see regarding sexual orientation fails to clearly reflect our reality.

We either adapt by constantly changing labels to describe our sexual orientation, depending on the gender of whoever we are in a relationship with at the time.

We end up giving in, and calling ourselves “bisexuals”, although the “regardless of gender” aspect of bisexuality tends to be absent / underrepresented within that community, and we are still surrounded by people gushing about liking men, women, non-binary, etc.

Or, we often end up making the choice of abandoning the system, no longer caring about whatever label people ask us to identify as, and often refusing to offer any clear or definitive answer to questions we feel don’t apply to the way we experience our sexuality in the first place.

If it appears I’m never quite offering you a satisfying answer, or you can’t accept I don’t feel anything special about the gender of a prospective mate, what else am I supposed to tell you?

When I’m not taking the time to really get into all those nuances and details, I do say I find men, women, non-binary people sexually attractive regardless of their gender, because I am able acknowledge that someone is a man, a woman, or elsewhere on the gender spectrum.

Society talks about people in terms of “men”, “women”, “bigender”, etc.  So, it makes sense to use the same language.  

Except, by doing so, I’m always referring to the fact that I can be sexually attracted to people that happen to be of all gender identities; and not expressing that I’m sexually attracted to them with regards of the gender identity they have, or what I see about themselves that I perceive to be feminine, masculine or otherwise.  Be those traits physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, etc.

Yeah, I’m sexually attracted to men, women, non-binary and agender people in the context where we are using those words to describe their gender identity; but it has nothing to do with my own instinctive sexual response to their gender.

I’m sexually attracted to brunettes, blondes, gingers, and other hair colors as well in the context where we are using those words to describe their hair color, and not my own instinctive sexual response to their hair color.

Oddly enough, I experience my sexuality in a way that is “inclusive” of all genders out there…  but only because my sexual impulses are instinctively rejecting gender as an aspect that influences my sexual desires towards them, and making me likely to want to get into a sexual relationship with them. Bisexuals usually tend to be openly appreciative of all forms of gender expressions out there, and welcome them with open arms.

Pansexuals will just want to have sex with you regardless.

While saying this, however, I’m aware that there may be plenty of bisexuals that identify with what I’ve explained since the beginning, and to them, this is also what their bisexuality means.

Maybe they don’t feel irritated by the way people keep insisting that it doesn’t matter whether one identifies as “sexually attracted to all genders” or “sexually attracted regardless of gender”.

Perhaps they decided that they were fine with adopting a label that was “close enough”, so that others would be satisfied with the answer, and leave them be.

Or maybe they got lucky, and found other bisexuals that clearly explained to them that it was totally normal to feel like gender was totally irrelevant to how you experience sexual attraction towards another human being.

But some of us did experience a lot of doubt and confusion that ended up taking a certain toll on our self-esteem (at least, for a while).

Some of us do feel more strongly about truly being seen for who we are: people without a sexual orientation with regards to gender.

Some of us also feel a special kinship with the asexual community, whose asexuality will sadly often be mocked, invalidated, or heavily questioned as soon as they choose to engage in sexual activity with a romantic partner.

I’m fully open to recognizing that the bisexual label, historically, might have been designed with the idea of including people that experience sexual attraction towards another human being regardless of gender into it.

But how we define sexual orientation and human sexuality, and the vocabulary used to describe it, is bound to keep evolving over the next few years as people start recognizing and identifying with complexities that weren’t as easily recognized, expressed, and accepted before.

It took me about 30 years to discover that there were other people out there that didn’t have any sexual orientation towards other people’s genders, and could be sexually attracted to them regardless.

I sincerely would have benefited from having had access to other pansexuals; people that, perhaps, would have been able to put words on what I was experiencing, help me understand and sort out my feelings, and figure out why being asked which gender I found sexually attractive tended to fill me with confusion and a sense of disconnectedness from the people around me.

I would have appreciated to have people describe sexual attraction and orientation to me in broader terms that put little to no focus on gender, and helped me explore my personal preferences in a more gender-neutral way.

What I’m trying to explain to you, is that I don’t feel that there is anything more inclusive, noble, or great about identifying as being pansexual, especially not as opposed to bisexuality.

But what I am trying to convey, name, and identify, is a very specific need that I had, growing up as a queer child, that sadly I feel hasn’t been addressed and properly met by the LGBTQ+ and the bisexual community back then.

It wasn’t because there were any ill-intents from bisexuals that would talk to me about how they found men and women, for example, sexually attractive…

It wasn’t because people were trying to be unwelcoming or deny my own experience.

It was simply because I did not have the words, the maturity, and the level of personal insight back then to futher explain what I was feeling.

I could not tell you why listening to bisexuals describe the way they were sexually attracted to multiple gender identities was generating more distress than it was helping me understand myself.

I could not tell you why I felt like my “sexual interests” kept changing according to whoever I liked at the time I liked them.

I could not properly realize that sexual orientation went WAY beyond gender, and that you could find a bubble butt to be a sexually attractive feature on someone, without giving a damn about any perceived male or female characteristics of said bubble butt, or the gender identity of the person you were sexually attracted to.

What I’m trying to say, today, now that I’ve had time to put all of this into words, is that those of us that experience sexual attraction towards other people regardless of gender might greatly benefit from having their own space.

I don’t care about calling it “pansexuality”.  You can call me “non-gender-oriented-sexual” or whatever else you like (as long as it remains respectful).

What matters to me, is that the current and future generations of LGBTQ+ kids be given the opportunity to meet with other people without gender-based sexual orientation, connect with others that can validate and clearly name what they are going through, and receive some guidance from those of us that have grown fully comfortable embracing that aspect of our sexuality and defining our sexual orientation in an alternative manner.

I am talking about clearer visibility, and access to resources for people we are supposed to care for and help.

I do not care about being right or wrong.

I’m telling you that some “non-gender-oriented-sexual” people, that currently tend to identify as pansexual, feel highly uncomfortable using gender to describe their sexual orientation.

And thus, insisting to put them all in the same category where a subset of people that understand what experiencing heterosexual (sexual attraction towards a gender different than our own) and homosexual urges (sexual attraction towards the same gender) feels like we are reinforcing the notion that there is something abnormal or wrong with them, rather than making it easier for them to get access to the resources they need and receive guidance from people that (fail to) relate to people’s genders in the same (or very similar) way they do.

I’m not trying to say the bisexual manifesto has no value or was wrong, either, simply trying to point out that there are some aspects and implications, regarding the personal experience of people that are sexually attracted to others regardless of their gender, that might have been overlooked back then.

And that we likely have everything to gain, as a larger community, by taking a good second look at all of our current definitions, without fear of redefining ourselves in a way that better reflects today’s context and reality.

I’m asking for help, understanding, acceptance, and hopefully visibility for others like me, so they don’t have to suffer the same issues I suffered from when I was a kid.

I want to help open the dialogue with the pansexual, bisexual and asexual communities, to get their own input on this and see what could be done to help us better support each other.

I’m open to many alternatives and solutions, but from the current look of things, I think this is a discussion that really needs to be had.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

As a bisexual, my sexuality was often erased. Here's why that's dangerous

Now I understand that finding the right terms is important to form a more accurate sense of self.

Rory Gory Opinion contributor

I came out as bisexual in 2004. At the time, it was the only way to explain my sexual attraction to people regardless of their gender, rather than specifically men or women. Then and today, bisexuals are often exposed to stigma from both the majority population, for not being heterosexual, and by the gay and lesbian communities for not having exclusive same-gender relationships and attractions.

Negative myths about bisexuals persist, such as the assumption that bisexuals are promiscuous, in the closet, or are unable to commit within a relationship. These biases have a damaging effect on the mental health of bisexuals, especially young people who are just beginning to form their identity and sense of self-worth.

According to a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center, bisexuals make up the largest share of LGBT Americans.

Among Americans ages 18–44, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, 5.5% of women and 2% of men self-identify as bisexual.

Bisexual visibility means that we will be recognized in LGBTQ spaces and in seemingly straight spaces, where bisexuals are routinely erased. It's time for us to stop looking at the LGBTQ community as a silo, and begin to see LGBTQ people as an integrated part of society as a whole.

I came out as a lesbian in high school, was told to kill myself. I would do it all over again.

Polyamory isn't just about sex or lack of commitment. People should be free to explore their options.

Growing up, it felt like whatever small affirmations existed for being LGBTQ, the overarching message was that being queer was both shameful yet simultaneously sexualized. Among bisexual youth, 21% reported having been forced to have sexual intercourse, compared with 5% of heterosexual peers and 16% gay and lesbian youth.

Gender plays a statistically significant role in the sexual assault of bisexuals, with 24% female and 8% male bisexual youth reporting having been forced to have sexual intercourse.

After coming out as bisexual, I ran away to Chicago, where the words I used to define who I was began to shift with the genders of my partners and my own gender expression. While dating a trans woman, I embraced sexual and gender fluidity, but I couldn’t really find community in gay spaces in 2006. There was freedom in letting labels go and just being myself. At 18 years old, I figured if there was no word to describe who I was, why try?

Now I understand that finding the right terms is important to form a more accurate sense of self — something our cisgender, heterosexual counterparts don't have to experience.

For many of us, sexuality may be a fluid experience, but the outcomes for different sexualities are distinct. The Trevor Project's analysis of national data from the 2015–17 CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey revealed that nearly 2 in 3 of bisexual youth felt sad and hopeless for two or more weeks in a row in the past 12 months, compared with 49% gay and lesbian youth and 27% heterosexually identified youth.

I'm still bisexual, regardless of who I date at the time

Returning back to Boston in 2010, my sexuality remained fluid, but I began a relationship that was perceived as heterosexual. My sexuality was no longer visible now that I had access to all the privileges of being read as a straight woman, even when I outed myself as bisexual. But the word bisexual didn't always convey my fluid gender identity. Without any other words, I buried myself with my trauma and quietly let others define my identity for me. I internalized my lack of visibility and became invisible.

Overall, lesbian, gay and bisexual youth report to suffering from higher rates of discrimination, victimization, negative mental health outcomes and suicidal tendencies than their heterosexual peers, according to the CDC. While we are suffering as a whole, our different sexualities and genders also impact our outcomes for mental health and sexual assault. If we hope to address these issues in our community, we need to be accounted for.

Our words to define our identities do matter when we collect data to understand the needs of our communities. My experiences with erasure, lack of belonging, sexual assault and suicidal tendencies might seem severe, but when you take into account that I am nonbinary and bisexual, I am statistically common. I may embrace the word queer as an easy catch-all descriptor for a fluid gender and sexuality in conversation, but the experience of being bisexual puts me at a much higher risk for both suicide and sexual assault.

To say that labels don't matter at all is to say that those statistical differences don't matter.

Rory Gory is the digital marketing manager for The Trevor Project, a suicide-prevention organization for LGBTQ youth. You can follow them on Twitter: @rorygory.

[genderqueerpositivity]

do you need dysphoria to be genderqueer? i'm a cis girl (i think) but sometimes like to present more masculine or androgynous, and don't care if people use they/them pronouns for me and i'm confused

No, dysphoria isnt required to be genderqueer. Dysphoria isnt required to be trans.

Gender expression is the way we prefer to present ourselves, to look, to appear to others. Gender identity is internal, a sense of self and being.

These are sometimes connected, but not always. Preferred gender expression and gender identity do not always align in the way that some folks think they should. Gender non-conformity is totally common and normal!

Even pronouns aren't gender. There are genderqueer people who don't prefer gender neutral pronouns and cisgender people who are fine with gender neutral pronouns.

You could be genderqueer, you could be trans. Or you could be a gender non-conforming cisgender girl. But only you can figure that out.

It's your gender!

Figuring things out is a process, not a race. If you aren't sure right now or a year from now, that's okay. It's okay to explore gender. If you don't experience dysphoria (or you do, but haven't yet figured it out, which does happen to some of us), try paying attention to what makes you happy. Gender euphoria.

Whether you eventually realize that you're cis or discover that you're trans, you'll know more about yourself in the end.

[queermediastudies]

Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and Self-Exploration

The movie I chose to review for this assignment is The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994). This movie follows two gay men and a transgender woman who all work as professional drag queens as they travel through rural Australia to perform a four-week residency at a resort. Tick (aka Mitzi) is the one who booked the residency because it is his wife’s resort, where she lives with their son. Tick needs a change of pace and to address his history with his wife and son. He is accompanied by his fellow performer Adam (aka Felicia) is young and adventurous, he sees the trip as an adventure and a chance to fulfill his dream of climbing a mountain dressed as a drag queen. Lastly, Bernadette is an uptight transgender woman who has recently lost her younger husband and decides to accompany the other two on their journey. They embark across the Australian outback in a rundown bus that they christen Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. The three queens meet many new people along the way and have various positive and negative experiences throughout the trip. During this trip they address their own personal problems and bond as a group while truly experiencing an adventure. This movie is a comedy of misadventures and feeling like a fish out of water in rural Australia. Told through a queer perspective and utilizing camp aesthetics this film questions identity, sexuality, and stereotypes with humor and a flair for the dramatic.

This film covers a lot of ground and looks at many important themes and topics throughout the film. The four key themes identified in this film are identity, sexuality, queer culture, and camp. These themes are explored through aesthetics, dialogue, and experiences that cause us, the viewers, to question our understanding of what it means to be queer.

This film looks at identity in a unique way. It shows queer identity through the actions and personalities of Tick, Adam, and Bernadette rather than explicitly stating that they are queer. This is demonstrated the most in Tick’s fluid sexuality. Tick has a wife and a son, who was born after he began performing as Mitzi, and they have been living in a small community while he has been living in the city. This journey begins because Tick’s wife calls him and asks him to come perform at the resort she runs. Bernadette and Adam do not know this at the beginning of the film. When they learn about Tick’s past they question his sexuality, specifically whether he is bisexual or gay, and Tick refuses to label himself. “Queer theory posits that sexuality is a vast and complex terrain that encompasses not just personal orientation and/or behavior, but also the social, cultural, and historical factors that define and create these conditions for such orientations and behaviors. As such, queer theory rejects essentialist or biological notions of gender and sexuality, and sees them instead as fluid and socially constructed positionalities” (Benshoff & Griffin, 2004, p.1). It is later revealed that Tick’s wife is also sexually fluid and has dated women in the past. Another interesting identity category employed in this film is urban versus rural cultures. “Identity may then be understood as the interface between subjective positions and cultural situations” (Andersson, 2002, p.4). This film portrays rural communities as white, uneducated, and masculine. The only friend the group makes on their journey is with a man who often talks about how he has traveled throughout his life before settling down. This is a common portrayal of rural communities across media.

The three main characters in this film all work as professional drag queens. They transform into alternate personas through the use of makeup, costumes, and wigs. Throughout the film Tick, Adam, and Bernadette wear wigs made from a myriad of materials, costumes that speak for themselves, and makeup that completes the illusion. These three individuals embody camp aesthetics and fierceness. “By fierceness, I mean a spectacular way of being in the world—a transgressive over-performance of the self through aesthetics. This over-performance works simultaneously to change the dynamics of a room by introducing one’s sartorial, creative presence into the space as well as it is to crystalize, highlight, and push back against limiting identity categories” (Moore, 2012, p.72). To these queens there is no such thing as too much, or being extra, they aim to create an illusion and entertain not just with their performance but with every aspect of their existence. These over the top performances and costumes set them apart from the people around them, especially as they enter the rural towns in the Australian outback. Their appearance itself questions what queerness, masculinity, femininity, and identity mean. “To be fierce is to transcend and to unravel, to self-actualize and to return the gaze. Because of its transgressive potential and deep connection to showmanship, fierceness allows its users to fabricate a new sense of self that radiates a defiant sense ownership through aesthetics” (Moore, 2012, p.72). Drawing inspiration from their favorite divas Tick (Mitzi), Adam (Felicia), and Bernadette challenge the perceptions of everyone they meet, bringing a flare for the dramatic and snarky humor everywhere they travel.

While this movie shows many positive views of queerness that break down some of the dominant ideologies held by the majority of audiences. It also includes some problematic representations and subplots that conform to those dominant ideologies. This includes representing AIDS as a gay problem, transphobic jokes, and problematic portrayals of people who are different from the three main characters.

In the film Tick, Adam, and Bernadette stop to spend the night in a small town. Tick lost a bet to Adam and so they enter the town in full drag and get a room at a motel. They then choose to go out to the bar where they have a tense encounter with a butch woman who says they do not belong in the town and should leave. After Bernadette insults the woman and “puts her in her place” they end up getting drunk and partying with the towns people. The next morning, they leave the hotel to see that someone has painted “AIDS FUCKERS GO HOME!” on the side of Priscilla. This is clearly a homophobic statement against the only obviously queer people in the town. This moment is starkly different from the camaraderie experienced in the bar the night before in the bar. Using AIDS as a way of attacking queer people shows the view that AIDS is a gay disease, and that their mere presence will spread the disease to this town. “Such diverse conceptualizations of AIDS are coupled with fragmentary interpretations of its specific elements… stereotypes about homosexuals generate startling deductions about the illness” (Treichler, 1987, p.34). This view is a harmful stereotype that negatively impacted medical policy and puts lives at risk. In the early 90s when this movie was made the AIDS epidemic was still a concern for many individuals. Using this as a way of demonstrating a homophobic attack on the main characters uses that stereotype and knowledge as a way to demonstrate ignorance in the community. Despite using the stereotype to display ignorance, it still uses AIDS as a synonym for gay. “We cannot effectively analyze AIDS or develop intelligent social policy if we dismiss such conceptions as irrational myths and homophobic fantasies that deliberately ignore the ‘real scientific facts’” (Treichler, 1987, p.34). The stereotype of AIDS as a gay disease cannot be dismissed or used simply as an ignorant view held by uneducated rural communities. AIDS has a much longer and damaging history.

One of the three main characters in this film is a transgender woman named Bernadette. In the beginning of the film her trans status is only mentioned I reference to how hard to was for her to find her partner, who has recently died. As the group embark on their journey through the outback there is more attention on her identity. Many people in these rural communities are not used to seeing a group of queer people and they often do not accept them. This film utilizes transphobic jokes to demonstrate this. However, the main person who insults or critiques Bernadette’s identity is Adam a cis white gay man. Adam routinely calls Bernadette by her dead name, Ralph, as a way to get a rise out of her. It upsets her every time so he does so throughout the film with little regard to how it makes Bernadette feel. Many members of the LGBTQ community are not accepting of transgender individuals, especially when they fail to pass as cisgender men and women. This is a current problem in the community, and a film that is targeted to that community should not use a person’s gender identity as a punchline. It is somewhat obvious that Bernadette is transgender and this causes many people to ask her about her trans status, including very personal questions surrounding her body. “Particularly emphasizes the performativity and social construction of identity by referring to transgender as people who move away from the gender the were assigned at birth, people who cross-over the boundaries constructed by their culture to define and contain that gender” (Fischer, 2018, p.94). While Bernadette is good natured about these questions and willingly answers them it still reduces her trans status to her physical biology. Bernadette is a tough woman and displays this in multiple tense situations throughout the film, but she is largely used as support for the other characters or as the spokesperson for the transgender community. She even plays a mothering figure for Adam after he is almost assaulted in a town for going out dressed as a woman and flirting with straight men. Despite Bernadette’s kindness and support Adam continues to invalidate her identity and use her dead name as a joke. “Scripted and fictional content engaging trans characters often reasserts heteronormativity rather than challenging or subverting gender binaries in efforts to appeal to dominant, cisgender audiences” (Fischer, 2018, p.98). This shows a lack of respect for an already marginalized community, who routinely face threats of physical violence, and reduced trans identity to biological essentialism.

In The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert almost every character is white. There are only two scenes in the movie where people of color are shown, and they are used exclusively to further the storyline or feature the three main characters. First, there is a group of aboriginals having a party in the middle of the desert. The adults in the group are shown drinking and talking with some playing music, while there are children sitting on the ground. After Tick, Adam, and Bernadette get there it is awkward at first. The band playing finishes their song and Tick, Adam, and Bernadette get into drag and perform for the group which is embraced. This is a very different from the reaction of a group of white townspeople who see the group in drag near the beginning of the movie. This is a moment of community, however, there is no interaction outside of this moment. Rather the aboriginals are used as an audience for Tick, Adam, and Bernadette without having any lives or personality outside of this moment. “Much depends on how common ground is defined, and in recent years an important multicultural critique has shown that too often the middle ground has been assumed to be that of relatively dominant positions: white, males, and middle-class” (Warner, 1991, p.16). This moment of community only happens because they are with other people who fall outside what is considered the norm. Instead of being queer they are people of color. The only other representation in this film is an Asian woman, Cynthia, living with her husband in a small town. This representation portrays her as negatively, she speaks in broken English and is looked down on because of her past as a sex worker. Her husband expects her to be submissive and when she is not he ignores her or verbally reprimands her. Then when she chooses to leave him, he is given the sympathy of the group while she is considered crazy. Cynthia is used as a foil to show that performing as a drag queen is not morally wrong compared to other forms of entertainment, like Cynthia’s performance. Cynthia is used only to show that Tick, Adam, and Bernadette are moral and respectable compared to her. “Queer struggles and those of other identity movements, or alternatively of other new social movements, often differ in important ways—even when they are intermingled in experience” (Warner, 1991, p.18). Cynthia is used as a pawn to further the respectability of the three, white, main characters.

My identity as a white cisgender bisexual woman allows me to both appreciate and enjoy the movie while still questioning its problematic traits. My identity influences how I view all media texts because identity is built through an individual’s environment and experiences. In this section I will look at how my race, sexuality, and gender influence how I experienced this film. This movie centers on white individuals with only a few scenes that include people of color, and they are represented in potentially damaging ways. This is a common problem in films that center whiteness. It is also a common problem for films made in the 1990s when many white people were less socially conscious of bias and stereotypes for people of color. The people of color shown are exclusively used to either further the storyline for the three white main characters or as a joke that serves to relieve some of the tension built up in the narrative. These portrayals are damaging especially for the marginalized groups represented. This film was widely popular among white gays and negatively portraying other marginalized groups furthers racism and discrimination within the gay community.

This movie addresses sexuality in a unique way. Instead of making sexuality a clear binary it is shown as a spectrum that can shift throughout an individual’s life. This is an important representation considering how prominent binary thinking is even today. The main character Tick has a wife and son, while he has also had boyfriends. He refuses to identify his sexuality and says he is not bisexual or gay he is with people. It is later revealed by his son, Benji, that Tick’s wife has been in relationships with women as well as men. This shows that sexuality does not have to be defined. While this concept is explored they also prominently feature a transgender character in this film. While there are some transphobic jokes and Bernadette does not pass as a cisgender woman, the only romantic storyline throughout the film centers on Bernadette and Bob (a mechanic in a small rural town). Showing a romantic relationship between these two characters challenges how transitioning is understood, Bernadette has had a gender confirming surgery but she does not pass for a cis woman, and the stereotypical portrayal of rural communities shown in the rest of the film. As a bisexual woman I appreciate sexuality being shown as fluid rather than in binary terms. Bisexuality is not always accepted in the queer community and many people see it as a stepping stone to becoming gay or as a pit stop before going back to heterosexuality. This film challenges that notion and even states that sexuality does not have to be defined or proven to anyone else. I like the portrayal of trans womanhood in this film because it questions beauty standards and focuses on how comfortable Bernadette feels with herself. While the movie discusses stereotypes of transness it does not make that Bernadette’s entire identity.

This film is enjoyed as a celebration of queer aesthetics and renowned for its costumes and pays tribute to camp; it also has a lot to say about queerness. It wraps up its critiques and challenges in comedy but, it still questions the dominant ideologies surrounding identity and social positioning. This film has flaws, many of which are not uncommon for a 90s movie, and these must be recognized however it also has important social critiques that are still relevant today. The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert utilizes queer aesthetics to examine identity politics and question dominant ideologies.

Reference:

Andersson, Y. (2002). Queer Media? Media Research in Progress, 1(1), 2–10.

Benshoff, H., & Griffin, S. (2004). General Introduction. In Queer Cinema: The Film Reader (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Routledge.

Fischer, M. (2018). Queer and Feminist Approaches to Transgender Media Studies. In Terrorizing Gender: Transgender Visibility and the Surveillance Practices if the U.S. Security State (pp. 93–107). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Moore, M. (2012). Tina Theory: Notes on Fierceness. Journal of Popular Music Studies, 24(1), 71–86.

Treichler, P. A. (1987). AIDS, Homophobia, and Biomedical Discourse: An Epidemic of Signification. AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism, 43, 31–70.

[anvrchists]

INFORMATION AND STATISTICS FOR JONAS MERCER

including an in-depth personality analysis

BASIC INFORMATION

Full name: Jonas Mercer, formerly Alexander Buchanan Marlo Nicknames: None Age: 36 years old Date of Birth: May 29th, 1984 Hometown: Scarsdale, NY Current location: Paradise, NV Ethnicity: Caucasian Nationality: American Gender: cisgender male (he/him) Sexuality: Pansexual, Panromantic Religion: Atheist Political Affiliation: Liberal Occupation: Business Owner, Anonymous Hacker Languages spoken: English, Irish, Spanish, French, Italian Accent: Un-pinnable Southern, hints at New Orleans and East Coast

PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

Face Claim: Boyd Holbrook Hair Colour: blond, in this style Eye Colour: blue Weight: 188lbs Height: 6′2 Build: Athletic Tattoos: TBD Piercings: TBD

PERSONALITY

Label: The Lothario Positive Traits: + intelligent, confident, adaptable, observant, charming, gregarious Negative Traits: - elusive, selfish, detached, superficial, flirtatious, dishonest Goals/Desires: to survive Fears: deep open waters, losing everything he’s worked for, claustrophobia, drowning/suffocating Hobbies: plants, cooking, reading, hunting, music

FAMILY

Father: alexander buchanan marlo i. 66. Mother: esme marlo (martin). 64. Sibling(s): none Children: open Pet(s): bernese mountain dog, murphy.

EXTRA

Zodiac Sign: Gemini - “Despite their unfair rep for being two-faced, once a Gemini is in your life, they’re loyal for life—but they aren’t afraid to voice their opinion if they feel you’re doing something they disagree with or if they perceive you as not being loyal to them.” MBTI: ESTP-A - The Entrepreneur. “ They love exploring interesting ideas, both in discussion and by going out and seeing for themselves, which means that Entrepreneurs always seem to have some fun activity hidden up their sleeves. At the same time, Entrepreneur personalities are easy-going, tolerant, and charming, making them naturally quite popular.” Alignment: True Neutral - "A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.” Enneagram: Type 8 - The Challenger. “Although, to some extent, Eights fear physical harm, far more important is their fear of being disempowered or controlled in some way. Eights are extraordinarily tough and can absorb a great deal of physical punishment without complaint—a double-edged blessing since they often take their health and stamina for granted and overlook the health and well-being of others as well. Yet they are desperately afraid of being hurt emotionally and will use their physical strength to protect their feelings and keep others at a safe emotional distance. Beneath the tough façade is vulnerability, although it has been covered over by layer of emotional armor.” Archetype: The Joker - “Light hearted, sociable and fun to be around.” Celtic Tree: Hawthorn, the Illusionist - “Just like Gemini in western astrology, the Hawthorn from the Celtic tree astrology isn’t all that it appears to be. Their exterior world can be completely different from the inner landscape and they can show a new side to you each day. If you hang out with Hawthorn signs too often, you’ll see that they put the term “never judge a book by its cover” to the test.” Temperament: Sanguine - “The sanguine temperament is fundamentally spontaneous and pleasure-seeking; sanguine people are sociable and charismatic. They tend to enjoy social gatherings, making new friends and tend to be boisterous. They are usually quite creative and often daydream. However, some alone time is crucial for those of this temperament.” Hogwarts House: Slytherin - “Slytherins tend to be ambitious, shrewd, cunning, strong leaders, and achievement-oriented. They also have highly developed senses of self-preservation. This means that Slytherins tend to hesitate before acting, so as to weigh all possible outcomes before deciding exactly what should be done.” Primary Vice: Pride - “[Pride] is identified as dangerously corrupt selfishness, the putting of one's own desires, urges, wants, and whims before the welfare of other people..” Primary Virtue: Prudence - “The ability to discern the appropriate course of action to be taken in a given situation at the appropriate time.” Element: Water - “They “go with the flow,” but don’t flit about like Air people. Their movements have a definite path, albeit an often unexpected one. The Water person’s open heart makes [him] generous, and [his] empathy can make [him] quite social, although not all Water people are “bubbly.” [He] is often very dreamy, and can be mystical.”

[a-polite-melody]

Truscum are always “honestly asking in good faith” why someone would transition without dysphoria.

Why the scare quotes?

Because while that’s what they say they’re doing, and what they’re portraying that they’re doing on the surface, what they’re actually doing is more insidious than that.

First of all, on any other posts made by truscum, where they’re trying to “educate” people, they say that their stance can be summarized just by, “you need dysphoria to be trans.” Anything else they say is built upon that assumption. And yes. That’s true.

And so, while asking why someone would want to transition if they aren’t dysphoric may seem like a harmless question and an opportunity to educate, it’s actually a trap.

Usually, as seen by how they move forward on those posts, they’re asking this question in lieu of asking how someone can be trans without dysphoria. They’re associating transness with transition, which is assimilationist bullshit that trans people have fought against for ages.

They’re perpetuating the societally held cisnormative believe that being cisgender is the default and trans people suffer because they’re “born with the wrong body” or “have a different brain sex than their body’s sex” or whatever the hell else nonesense cis people try to explain transness with (while coincidentally ignoring the extreme amounts of variation within even just cis people who share agabs’ primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, gonad structure, hormone levels, chromosomal make-up, etc. that demonstrate that the binary sexes aren’t two distinct categories, but a spectrum of different traits, and so “male brains and female brains” being in the wrong “female bodies and male bodies” is a gross oversimplification, as all sex-essentialist views are).

Basically, it’s a very reductionist stance that truscum/transmeds have taken by way of equating transness with transition with dysphoria (ie. clinicially significant levels of distress).

So, to answer their actual question of: “How can someone be trans without having dysphoria?” while also going over the answer to their ““good faith”” question’s answer as well.

Being trans is defined as “a person whose sex/gender assigned to them at birth differs from their actual gender.” If someone, when they were born, had a doctor exclaim about them, “it’s a girl!!” and then the person themself later, once they’ve started learning more about themself as a growing, developing person, says, “actually I think I’m a [insert-other-gender-descriptor-here],” then they’re trans.

No part of that requires dysphoria. And you aren’t entitled to know if they experienced it or not in realizing they’re trans.

That isn’t to say that dysphoria isn’t a very common way trans people realize that they’re trans, and that it’s not a common thing many trans people deal with. It just isn’t (and doesn’t have to be) a universal experience for every trans person. Every person is different. Every trans person is different. Your experience of having dysphoria may not accurately describe other trans people’s experiences, just like my experience of having had only euphoria may not accurately describe other trans people’s experiences.

I, personally, have fluctuating dysphoria. It took me multiple months after realizing that I’m trans to actually identify that feeling as dysphoria because it did fluctuate so much (and still does), while my gender euphoria stayed constant and very strong. And no, I’m not saying that to say, “take it from a real dysphoric trans,” I’m saying that for a long while, even after I’d realized I was trans, I didn’t actually have dysphoria. I still go through long spells of not having dysphoria.

I knew I wasn’t a woman. It never felt wrong to be called a woman, but saying that I’m not a woman feels more right. Which is why I want to socially transition to being nonbinary, and have in online spaces and offline safe spaces. Even before I experienced dysphoria, even when I haven’t experienced dysphoria in a long while, I still am nonbinary and want to be referred to as such. Same deal can happen with body parts. While I’ve basically resigned myself to not have gender affirming surgeries because I don’t need even more surgeries on top of the likely many I’ll have in the future because of chronic illness and disability... I should have a penis. I was born without one. I’m not dysphoric about what I have. I even kinda like what I’ve got going on down there when it’s not throwing a tantrum at me about one thing or another. But I also have. Basically a phantom penis. It’s there, even if it’s not physically there. I’m not dysphoric, but if it were viable for me to have that kind of intensive surgery paying out of pocket (because for me it’s not necessary, even though I want it), I totally would. There’s physical transition without dysphoria, and notice how it doesn’t steal resources considering even with universal healthcare where I live, non-necessary procedures usually can’t be covered, and also get pushed down to the very bottom of waiting lists in favour of people who have serious need of those surgeries within a shorter timeline so that the resource of time actually ends up getting taken from those of us who might get an improved quality of life, but don’t technically need the surgeries because we’re not dysphoric and often will end up with our lives on pause for years so that people who need it sooner can only have their lives paused for a few months. Just saying. (Resource stealing arguments have never made sense to me, especially now that I’m in the medical system for other non-“necessary” crap related to the disability/chronic conditions and keep getting sidelined and nothing is moving forward because I’m not imminently dying, so it’s fine, I guess. But I digress...)

My experience of transness has had so little dysphoria that the majority of what I’d consider to be that transness has nothing to do with dysphoria. Dysphoria has almost no role in my identity or my being trans.

It’s at about this point that I’m expecting comments like, “But you are dysphoric. It doesn’t matter that it’s rare, all that matters is that you’re dysphoric!”

And that misses the point entirely. I’m not looking for validation for myself. I’m not looking for edgy teens who think bullying people is fun and cool if you’re an oppressed person doing it to tell me that actually, I’m a “twue vawid twans uwuwuwu!!!”

I’m saying that propping dysphoria up as the one single thing that makes a person trans is reductionist and has assimilationist roots. It’s intrusive and a violation to require knowledge of someone’s medical conditions (which dysphoria is, transness is not).

Take trans people at our words. We know us best. And you being trans doesn’t make you the expert on each and every one of us. Instead of trying to prove if someone’s a cishet faker, take them at face value.

And, you know... just. Use their behaviour to gage if they should be asked to leave or not. I’ve been hurt waaaay more often and way more seriously by gatekeepers in LGBT+ spaces than people in queer spaces who are “““transtrending”””. I’d rather outsiders see people having harmless fun exploring their identities and thinking trans people are a joke than them seeing people infighting and making what is meant to be a safe and welcoming space for people figuring out gender stuff into a place of bullying and harassment and think trans people are a joke.

Because, in the end, people saying they’re stargender will never hurt trans people as much as someone probing into their medical history, assuming things about them based on parts of their appearance which they can’t hide about themself (like big hips, breasts that can’t be made flat or can’t be bound at all, etc.) that make them “present female” (whatever the hell that means), especially if that trans person has been trying to love all of their body anyway as part of self care, and as such triggering dysphoria in a whole bunch of trans people in doing so.

[gettin-bi-bi-bi]

1 - I feel like this message will be all over the place, I'm sorry. I just have to get it out. So I'm questioning my sexuality and have been for a while now, but I'm afraid to really think about it. I think I might be bi but it's hard to tell because I'm fairly sure I might be on the ace-spectrum as well which makes it extra hard to realize attraction since I don't think I feel sexual attraction. Or maybe I do but I'm just that dumb and don't get it?

2 - And at one point I thought I might actually be a lesbian bc my (romantic) attraction to men was paired with like a lot of nervousness and not actually wanting to date them if it came to it. But now that I have a crush on a girl (my first same gender crush that I can think of) it’s still the same; I’m super flustered around her and would do ridiculous things to impress her and just wanna hold her hand but if she were to ask me out I know I’d panic and decline.

3 - It doesn’t help that I’ve been depressed for years and I know my mental health is in a very bad place (but I’m getting therapy for it). Does that affect my confusion about my sexuality? I’m also very afraid to pick a label like bi or ace or both just in case I turn out not to be, I don’t wanna be “that straight girl” who tries to belong where she doesn’t you know?

4 - Doesn’t help that I’m terrified of the backlash I could potentially get if I was lgbt+, I don’t know if I could handle it, especially from my parents. I’m sorry if this is a lot, I’m just so confused.

I’m gonna go through this bit by bit again because there’s a lot of different issues and questions here. It’s gonna be a long reply but I don’t know how to condense it even more.

“I think I might be bi but it's hard to tell because I'm fairly sure I might be on the ace-spectrum as well [...] maybe I do but I'm just that dumb and don't get it?”Sexual attraction can be a difficult concept to understand especially if you’re on the ace-spectrum. But you’re not “dumb” for having trouble with this. You simply live in a society that treats sexual attraction a standard experience that ~everyone~ is supposed to have so it’s not really talked about what it really means. Of course it’s an individual thing to an extend but generally speaking, sexual attraction means you can look at someone (even a random stranger) and feel a desire to have sex with them. It doesn’t mean one has to act on that desire but it’s certainly a “oh this person is hot - I wanna bang!!” in the most primitive sense lol I can imagine that being on the ace-spectrum can make it harder to explore what other types of attraction you might experience and to which genders. But it’s not impossible. There’s plenty of asexual/biromantic people and I’d recommend trying to talk to some of those as well and just generally get involved with the ace community.

“my attraction to men was paired with like a lot of nervousness and not actually wanting to date them if it came to it [...] but if she were to ask me out I know I’d panic and decline.”I mean... what you talk about regarding men can be a sign of being a lesbian but I guess it can also just as well be a sign of being asexual since “dating” and “relationships” are often associated with sex and though some ace people do have and enjoy sex there’s also sex-repulsed asexuals. So if you genereally don’t want to have sex or are iffy about it that explains why you backed off whenever you had the chance to date someone - bc you thought this would have to lead to sex which you may or may not want to have. Regarding the girl you currently have a crush on, the whole ~being ace and possibly sex-repulsed~ can also play a part plus internalised queerphobia. Since you struggle to accept your queerness and you currently don’t dare claiming a label for yourself it’s evident that you have a lot of shame that needs to be unpacked. As long as you have this much anxiety about your (a)sexuality and potential biromanticism your gut reaction to a girl’s advances will be panic. It’s not surprising. Crushing on a girl forces you to think about being bi and since you’re scared of facing this reality it’s a logical consequence that you’re freaking out!

“It doesn’t help that I’ve been depressed for years [...] Does that affect my confusion about my sexuality?”Yes, it definitly can affect your sexuality and/or your questioning process. Being queer in an inherently queerphobic society is a form of constant low-key (at best; high-key at worst) trauma. A lot of queer people have some form of PTSD just from ~being surrounded by everyday queerphobia~. But even if your depression has totally different reasons, it can still affect how you deal with sex in general, how you experience romance, how you experience yourself. Questioning one’s sexuality is (unfortunately!) not a safe thing to do for many people which means it can be anxiety inducing. And queer people have higher rates of mental health problems that non-queers. That’s a fact. Anf if you’re already depressed for whatever other reason and then add anxiety over being queer to the mix, well... you do the maths! It’s hard, man. It sucks. But it’s great you’re already getting help already. I’d hope your therapist is queer-friendly so you can talk about these things with them. And additionally you should try to get some queer counselling if there’s something available in your area. If your therapist isn’t queer-friendly then I would strongly advice you to find a different one.

“I’m also very afraid to pick a label like bi or ace or both just in case I turn out not to be, I don’t wanna be “that straight girl” who tries to belong where she doesn’t you know?”’Okay, look. I recently answered two asks that touch on that subject and I don’t think I can say it better than there so I’m gonna quote myself and link you to them so you can read the whole thing if you want.

1) Even when you’re not entirely sure of your bisexuality yet, questioning people belong into the community as well. The “Q” in LGBTQIA+ stands both for “queer” and for “questioning” - some people even use a version of the acronym that has two Qs to highlight that! So you belong whether you already identify as bisexual or not. The LGBTQIA+ community is supposed to be an environment where you can safely explore your sexuality - even if you turn out not to be queer. You still belong for as long as you are questioning because “questioning” is a queer identity. (x)

2) “Straight” women are allowed to experiment and explore their sexuality. I put “straight” in quotes here because a lot of these women might actually be questioning or they are bisexual and struggling with internalised biphobia (which won’t get better if biphobic lesbians keep telling them they are “just one of those straight girls”). And even the women who do end up realising that they really are straight have had every right to experiment. It’s their sexuality and they can do with that as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone. They don’t owe anyone to come out as queer. “Only to say they are straight” sounds like it’s a huge disappointment when all these women did was live out their sexual curiosity. Any half decent queerfeminist should know better than to police women’s sexuality - even when the women in question are straight. (x)

“Doesn’t help that I’m terrified of the backlash I could potentially get if I was lgbt+, I don’t know if I could handle it, especially from my parents.”I understand it can be terrifying, especially if you know your family won’t support you. But the thing is... no matter how much potential backlash there is, you won’t stop being queer. You cannot stop. You cannot run away from your sexuality. You can certainly try but it won’t make you happy and it will take a toll on your mental health. This is not to say that you ~must~ come out. You can be as much out or closeted as you want and as is safe for you. But you cannot convince yourself of being something you are not. There will probably be some people you can safely come out to, others you’d rather not tell. That’s the on-brand queer experience. Maybe one day you can afford to not give a fuck about what your parents think, even if it comes at the price of losing them. That’s gonna be a problem for future!You though. And if you work on self-acceptance through therapy and through connecting with the queer community, building a support system - then it’ll get easier over time.

It’s unfortuantely very common to be scared of this but being scared won’t make you any less bi or ace or whatever type of queer you wanna be. And yes, I say “wanna be” because at the end of the day what label you use and feel comfortable with is your choice. You cannot technically be “wrong” about your sexuality. Even if you pick a label now and then later realise another one suits you better - then you just change your label. No harm done.

And even if you go through a period of questioning, try on multiple queer labels and then have the grande epiphany that you are actually just a basic ol’ heterosexual heteroromantic cisgender person - you did not harm the queer community in the slightest. I wish more straight cis people would question their sexuality and gender and come to the informed conclusion that they really are straight and cis - instead of taking it for granted because our society treats it as the default. What’s the point in questioning if only people who already know that they are queer were allowed to do it?! What’s the point if everyone who questions their sexuality ~has~ to realise that they are queer?

So.... long story short... sounds like you have the very common Queer Anxiety on top of your existing depression and they are probably affecting each other and make each other worse. You should definitly try to work on your internalised biphobia and acephobia and talk to your therapist about it. I have advice on internalised biphobia here - you can use those methods for asexuality as well.

Maddie

[kassandratheeaglebearerblog-blog]

Comparison of LGBT history

Màlaka! Well, here we go again, another example of the madness of your generation! After skin tone, you decided to judge people and illtreat them depending on who they decided to love? This modern world will never cease to shock me, for better and for worst. It should be noted that over the years, you all created terms which did not exist in my days. This was slightly confusing for me at first but I now understand this was an effort made to classify and differentiate between all of those different variants of sexual preference and identity one might express.

 First, let’s start with what you call ‘gender identity’. By your modern standards, it refers to one’s sense of one’s self as gendered person. It may or may not correspond to one’s gender assigned at birth and may or may not conform to one’s perception of masculinity or feminity. In my case, since I was considered to be a girl at birth and still identify as a woman, I would be what you call ‘cisgender’. Though, I have to say, since I spent most of my time on the battlefield and was not scared to stand up for myself and those I loved, I am not exactly your typical Spartan lass and I am the complete opposite of how an Athenian woman was supposed to act. And fighting so much did help me develop a musculature any men would envy. Màlaka, even Alkibiades looks scrawny compared to me! Though he does know how to make up for his shortcomings…

If one’s gender identity does not match one’s gender given at birth, then one is considered as being ‘transgender’. Those people, in an attempt to obtain the body they dream of, might get surgery from your physicians. Hippokrates would be glad to see how far medicine has progressed! Which leads us to the next term, ‘MTF’ which refers to someone considered by society to be male getting surgery so that their body looks more womanly. The other term is ‘FTM’ which refers to a female individual getting surgery in order to make her body fit the norms of masculinity. As a result of transitioning, people need to change their ‘legally recognised sex status’ which can prove to be difficult due to the divisive laws yours leaders enact. We also have people who your physicians, in their fancy language, call ‘transsexuals’. The latter refers to people with significant cross-gender identity.  In order not to hurt anyone’s feelings, you younglings created ‘gender inclusive/gender neutral pronouns’ which are pronouns used for people who identify as being outside the gender binary. We also have ‘intersex’, which refers to people born with ambiguous genitals. This word seems to be favoured over ‘hermaphrodite’, which is frowned upon as over the years, it became a slur. In my Greece, the word did exist, but as ‘Hermaphroditos’.

‘Hermaphroditos’ was the son and fruit of, unsurprisingly, the many extramarital love affairs of Aphrodite had, with the father this time being Hermes. Maybe Hermes tried to find solace in her arms? I cannot blame him after his love, Persephone, threw him off a bridge right in front of me. But at the same time why was he courting a married woman? Though Persephone herself told me she hated her husband, Hades, because he kidnapped her from her mater’s care. And as I witnessed, Hades was not exactly a model husband because he was too busy creating chaos and torturing humans in Tartarus and was neglecting his wife a lot. Which led to Persephone turning into a control freak who was making the undead’s life in the fields of Elysium impossible. Màlaka! Take it from my experience, never meddle in the Gods love affairs!

From what my mater told me as a little girl, Hermaphroditos was a remarkably handsome young man who caught the attention of a naiad called Salmacis. Salmacis was so enamoured by him that she prayed to be united with him forever. A God responded to her request by merging their two forms into one, creating a single androgynous form. From this day onwards, they (I am a fast learner!) came to be seen as the deity of intersexuality and hermaphroditism. They are also associated with marriage, symbolising the union of, traditionally but not necessarily, a man and a woman, two separate entities becoming one through the sacred bond of marriage. This is further emphasised by the fact that their parents were the deities supposed to protect and bless brides.

Moreover, back in my Greece, despite the fact that children were brought up respecting the gender norms and stereotypes, once adults, they were free to live the rest of their lives however they wanted to, which included a man renouncing his male status and instead adopting  a female identity or vice versa. It was quite a rare occurrence but not an impossible one. Fully transitioning was obviously impossible because Hippokrates had not yet developed the required surgery. Although I never met him, I found out about a Roman emperor, Elagabalus, who can be considered as one of the earlier transgender figures.

Elagabalus was married 5 times to women but never had a long-lasting marriage. His most stable liaison was with Hierocles, a blonde slave from Caria who was also a chariot driver. The emperor found delight in being called the mistress, wife or queen of Hierocles. He also preferred being called a lady instead of lord and would wear a lot of makeup and wigs. There are even tales of him offering large sums of money to physicians who could give him a vagina. There were even reports of him depilating his body and painting his eyes before prostituting himself in taverns, brothels and even his own palace. Whether that is true or not, I cannot tell. Just like Cleopatra after him, his enemies made it a priority to launch a smear campaign against him.

The next concept we will see is that of ‘sexual orientation’. This has to do with sexual erotic and/or emotional attractions, interests and orientation. Someone who identifies as male and is sexually and romantically attracted to men only would be gay. Lesbian is the same thing but refers to women who like other women. We also have other types of orientation such as bisexual, pansexual, demiromantic, skoliosexual, aromantic, asexual and so on just to name a few. Understanding about the LGBT community for your generation is fairly new. Even members of the community sometimes struggle to understand each other with gay and lesbians being intolerant towards bisexuals for example. LGBT people faced a lot of backlash back in the days and still do, though things are evolving with countries becoming more and more understanding and legalising same-sex marriage, adoption and enacting anti-discrimination rules.

Back in my Greece, it was common for older Athenian men to have younger lovers, even harems of them, in addition to their wife. The belief was for the older man to educate the younger one, give him shelter and help him become adult while having a more intimate relationship with the young man. Penetrative sex between two men in itself was not seen as degrading or something vile but the one taking the passive role was the one who was not necessarily shown respect. Thebes took advantage of gay love by creating an army troop which consisted of 150 gay couples as it was thought there would be no fiercer warrior than a man trying to protect his lover. While male homosexuality and sexuality was celebrated, lesbians were more invisible than others because at the time, it was thought the only way for people to have sex would be through penetrative sex, which led to female pleasure and homosexuality being eclipsed.

Luckily for me, being a mercenary and a descendant of the great Leonidas himself, I was able to break free from the glass ceiling and from the heteronormative expectations of society. And this also meant I was able to explore my sexuality to the fullest. I think that by today’s standards I would be what you call a ‘bisexual’ since I did have my fair share of encounters with members of both gender. One of the most memorable one was on the islands of Delos and Mykonos, the Silver Islands. There, I met Kyra and Thaletas. While helping Kyra to weaken the Athenian’s control, we did grow closer to each other in several ways…

As for Thaletas, almost all of his army got annihilated by the Athenians, leaving him broken. And pride is a Spartan’s strongest sentiment so repairing that was definitely worthy of Herakles himself. At the climax of the oncoming battle, our feelings took control and…

But those relationships never lasted and I was always on the move. That is, unless I met my soulmate Natakas who became the father of my child, Elpedios. 

But even then, my relationship with Natakas ended abruptly because of the ones calling themselves the ‘Hidden Ones’… I just hope my two loves are together are together. It’s only a matter of time before the Heir of memories comes and I can join them in Elysium.

[migleefulmoments]

I'm a psych major - i seriously believe that the CC fandom is a cult - the hate they send is cult like mentality, they have something seriously wrong with them. Like mentally. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them got arrested for harassment of C or D or their partners.

Come off anon and chat with me...there is a lot to unpack and I won’t do it publicly.  

There is definite some mental health issues for in that fandom. I too keep wondering how far they will push it.  If not them, will some follower of theirs do something stupid because they are emboldened by the rhetoric that the ccc leaders spew? 

Whether the anons are real or the leaders of the ccc are sending anons to themselves-or it’s a combination of both- is unclear to me, what I do know is that the answers they are giving are consistently and purposefully misleading and often outright lies. 

Two recent examples of their outrageous lies; 

1. ANON::

“...have u seen naya say on the podcast that C was actually upset about santana's rant to kurt in that episode... because it was so real? it really makes u think that there was for sure one writer thay really did have it out for chris...

ajw720 answered:

That rant was 100% directed at C and it was divined by RM.  He is raging with jealousy towards C, he has everything, looks, talent, creativity, and D.  And things completely feel apart when RM realized C was genuine competition.  You realize Blainofsky was punishment to CC for acting out that past summer? He literally broke up the fan favorite couple on the show during the last season for revenge. And he despises C in particular. And that rant was not aimed at K/urt. It was aimed at C.  And I am glad N/aya commented on it, I can’t imagine how she felt being used on that manner.

FACT CHECK: 

Had she spent 2 minutes Googling this she would have realized that fact Brad Falchuk-not Ryan Murphy- wrote Jagged Little Tapestry thus invalidating her entire theory.

Everything she said about Ryan Murphy in this paragraph is simply her fantasy. Ryan is a very successful and powerful Hollywood writer, producer, and director. He is also gay and married with young children and Is a powerful LGBQT advocate.  His youngest son waged a 2-year battle with Neuroblastoma from 2016-2018. Neuroblastoma is a vicious form of childhood cancer that requires intense treatment. I used to be an pediatric oncology/bone marrow transplant nurse and this cancer and treatment is no joke. 

Ryan Murphy is very creative- he created and wrote episodes of Glee, 911, and  Nip/Tuck, AHS, ACS, and the upcoming The Politician. Check out his IMDB (X).  

He has won numerous awards and nurtured a lot of queer content including Pose which hired both LGBTQ actors and staff making it highly unlikely that he would closet a gay actor. 

She suggested Ryan is jealous of Chris because of his “looks” and  his relationship with Darren. There is nothing to suggest that Ryan is unhappy in his married, his attracted to much younger or is attracted to Chris and/ Darren.  Ryan called his husband, “His rock” in 2018 when talking about their son’s illness.  

Abby ignores  Ryan’s real life story, instead because it doesn’t fit her fanfiction character profile she created for Ryan.     

2. ANON: 

“....is it a known fact to the whole fandom that f/etusm/iarren is M/ia ?” (X)

chrisdarebashfulsmiles answered:

Hi, you know, i think (my opinion) that m/iarrens are ignoring purposely this fact. Like.. they have seen everything happening or showed here and decided to say “hey, you know? i don’t care”. Like they do with everything that is not part of the “D is straight” tale.

Let’s say that most of us have an idea about who the minions are (if they exists and i think i can tell you that maybe one is a real person)… but it’s irrelevant. 

The account still exists because, and believe me i don’t know how this is possible, the stans who follow that account are more “m/ia stans” (the ones that bother us on our blogs and in blogs dedicated to hate and mock us) than “D stans.  Let me tell you one thing: i speak with a good bunch of “m/iarren” that are D stans and we are on the same page, we worry for D. No talk of bullshit with them. Most of them understood that something wasn’t ok and they left their fandom, without becoming part of the cc one. Others are still here but more subtle and still respectful.

And I see why: because they want to understand what is wrong.

Anyway: D’s team gives her stuff, and this is one of the problem.

FACT CHECK:

In truth, there are very few “Mia stans” and a lot of “Darren stans”.  The CCCers refuse to listen to what their anons actually say. Instead they pigeon-hole people into categories based on their own needs and they need us to be unreasonable and obsessed with Mia rather than Darren for their self-righteous antics to work.   

Nobody that I am aware of is purposefully ignoring credible evidence that Darren is gay. None of us are looking at the “evidence “ and saying “hey, we don’t care”.  The fact is that very few people care if Darren is gay or straight and the “evidence” is nonsense. I have yet to year one thing that sounds credible. Anyone else? 

I did a very rudimentary look her claim that “The account still exists because, and believe me i don’t know how this is possible, the stans who follow that account are more “m/ia stans” than “D Stans”.  I sampled 280 Fetu/sMiarr/en followers: 

The vast majority were private accounts aka we cannot say why they are interested in the account.

4 or 0.1% called themselves Mi/arrens

10 or 3.5% listed Kl/aine or Gle/e in their profile

15 or 5.3% listen Darre/n or posted photos of him alone

1 or 0.03% was a Guns ‘N Hoses page DING DING DING we found the Mia Stan.   

Darren’s team gives her stuff? What exactly would Darren’s team need to give her? She is his wife. She goes everywhere with him. they own a home and bar together. 

Chrisdarebashfulsmiles had a rare moment of honestly when she said “Believe me I don’t know how this is possible”.  The truth is. it isn’t possible. it’s all made up.

Abby stuck her nose in to the conversation with this wisdom: 

ajw720

And a lot of the stans who refuse to accept it, need M because she is the only thing that makes d straight. And they know as soon as they start to question, they have to face reality

Um, no Abs, Mia is not the only thing that makes Darren straight. 

Darren is straight because he is a man who is sexually attracted to women....the very definition of “straight”.  

Darren has identified as straight for 9 years. 

Your confusion around his sexual orientation is simply your refusal to respect his word because you believe you know more than he does about his own feelings-however that isn’t a valid argument.    

His marriage to Mia is a personal decision to build a life with the woman he loves and has been in a relationship with for 9 years or so.

Let’s look at Darren’s own words over the years:  

2011 'Glee' Star Darren Criss Comes Out—As A Straight Guy!(X)

"I think it's more empowering to everybody, including myself, if I'm articulate about identifying myself as a straight male playing a gay character," the actor says in the Hollywood issue of Out magazine. "Ultimately, that's more powerful for both communities."

When Criss first got the role of Blaine, he admits that he wanted to deflect questions about his sexual orientation, giving reporters answers like, "It doesn't matter if I'm gay or straight." But he decided that it was better if he was just honest and straightforward. Besides, he explains, he owes a huge part of his identity to gay role models. 

2011 “Glee Star Darren Criss Dishes on Kissing Lea Michele & Losing Out To Cory Monteith (X)

I’ve been pretty overt about the fact that I am straight,” Darren told Billy and Kit. “I think it’s an important thing to be explicit about — not for my own sexuality, but just as a general statement that I am comfortable with my sexuality and very comfortable with the fact that I’m playing a strong gay character.”

I’ve been pretty overt about the fact that I am straight,” Darren told Billy and Kit. “I think it’s an important thing to be explicit about — not for my own sexuality, but just as a general statement that I am comfortable with my sexuality and very comfortable with the fact that I’m playing a strong gay character.”

2013 Cosmo Guy” Darren Criss On Glee’s New Chapter   (X)

Q: You're not gay; you just play gay on TV. Do you ever feel the need to assert your heterosexuality?

A: No. I know who I am. I feel bad for guys who have to flex their muscles. But hey, if that's the way to make yourself feel comfortable as a man—as long as it isn't antagonizing anybody—go for it. I'm okay with your getting a Miata to feel like a dude; just don't be a dick about it.

Darren Criss Will No Longer Play Gay Characters (X)

Darren Criss has decided that he will no longer play gay characters. Why? Because he doesn’t want to be a straight actor taking potential roles from actors who actually identify as gay, he said in a recent interview with Bustle.

“There are certain [queer] roles that I’ll see that are just wonderful,” he explained. “But I want to make sure I won’t be another straight boy taking a gay man’s role.”

2018 Darren Criss on Playing Serial Killer Andrew Cunanan in ACS: Versace and Passing as White  (X)

You’ve also played a lot of gay and queer characters. Has playing these parts informed how you think about your sexuality or gender? That’s a great question. God, we need like an hour. Sure, yes. Absolutely. It definitely has. I think being queer in general evokes more self-questioning than somebody who’s cisgender straight, because you really have to explore a lot of things about yourself that are meeting resistance on conventional social levels. So you have to go, “Okay, cool. Is this really how I feel?” There are questions that arise within yourself that doesn’t have to happen if you live in a hetero-normative universe. So in that sense, I think the journey of questioning oneself, which everybody does anyway — and should do— I admire that narrative. Even though I am not gay myself, or queer, I am a storyteller, and I love and appreciate the strength of character it takes for someone to get through that, whether it was difficult or not. I’ve been very blessed in my career with being allowed in the gay community. Again, as a cisgendered straight dude, that’s not lost on me. I don’t take that for granted. It’s been such a huge part of my life, even pre-Glee. I come from San Francisco doing theater, man. Like, I was raised by gay men. Not literally at home, but you know, as a young kid doing theater, my friends were these men and women in their 20s, driving me home and getting me dinner. These were my adult figures in my life, so unconsciously I’ve always had such affection for the life, whatever that means. So I guess inhabiting a gay voice is important to me because it’s a voice that I find inspiring. 

These are just two of the many lies the cc fandom tell their followers in order to manipulate them into believing the fantasies that means much to them.  

[queerforscience]

Both queer people and disabled people have been pushed to hide their deviations from the norm from the rest of society by being subjected to so called "therapies." Psychiatry has often been used as a tool of enforcement of dominant social norms. This is especially true for queer and disabled people given that our very existence has often been conceived as something to be corrected by psychiatry. An oft cited example of this is the parallels between Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), a form of "therapy" often used on autistic children, and "conversion therapy" intended to make children straight, cisgender, and gender conforming. Both of these forms of therapy are purported to help the "patient" by allowing them to fit in better with society, however, both are harmful to the patient.

Underlining the parallels between these is the key involvement of one clinician in the development of both in the late 1970s. O. Ivar Lovaas was one of the first to suggest applying behavior therapy techniques to both autistic children and queer children. In papers on both techniques, the focus is on reinforcing socially acceptable "normal" behavior and "extinguishing" non normative behaviors. In the case of gender nonconforming children, a portion of the paper was dedicated to justifying this approach, saying "professional intervention for these children is appropriate because the early identification and prevention of male homosexual conflict, transvestism,... and transsexualism… is preferable to all other clinical options." In the case of autistic children, however, no such justification was given, presumably because the idea that autistic children should be made to behave more like neurotypical children was seen as obvious and inarguable; claiming that "school personnel describe[d] these children as indistinguishable from their normal friends" is presented as clear evidence of success without any exploration of whether appearing normal is desirable. In addition, the papers on both topics use expressed behaviors as the primary endpoint and do not measure or discuss the internal experiences of the children being "treated," showing that these therapies have the goal of forcing conformity without regard for the wellbeing of the "patients."

Perhaps the most striking evidence for the parallels between regulation of autistic people through ABA and the regulation of queer people through conversion therapy is accounts from those who have undergone these "treatments." Survivors of both ABA and conversion therapy frequently recount being made to feel that who they are is wrong through the constant policing of their self expression. While justifications for ABA and conversion therapy often claim that the behaviors they are trying to change are separate from the person exhibiting them, this is not the message that patients receive. One ABA survivor wrote "I started to think autism was bad because I heard other people say I was bad. I started to internalize the shame of being autistic." Many conversion therapy survivors have also recounted how they were made to feel that they were wrong because they found themselves unable to simply stop feeling attraction as their "therapists" said they should.

Both conversion therapy and ABA survivors also talk about how they felt they were being taught compliance at the expense of  actual emotional health. This aligns with the criticisms of psychiatry in general voiced by many people labelled with a variety of mental illnesses in the psychiatric consumer/survivor/ex patient movement, such as Judi Chamberlin who said "Emotionally healthy people are supposed to be strong and assertive… yet compliance is often a high value in professionals’ assessments of how well we are doing. Being a good patient becomes more important than getting well." When talking about her own experience in hospitals, Chamberlin said "I tried hard to be a good patient… I gritted my teeth and told the staff what they wanted to hear." In hir work Stone Butch Blues, which is fictional but draws heavily from the author's life, Leslie Feinberg describes the main character's experience with being hospitalized following being discovered wearing her father's clothes in a similar way: "I already sensed that giving the staff a hard time might man never getting out of there, so I took the pills… My mind was focused on escape." These accounts show that psychiatry is a framework through which power can be wielded to enforce compliance and regulate marginalized groups.

[devilsknotrp]

Congratulations, Marie! You have been accepted for the role of Julie West (FC: Elle Fanning). This was such an unbelievably hard decision. Both applications for Julie were amazing, and each one touched on different aspects of her as a character. Unfortunately we could only choose one. Marie, I absolutely adore how you’ve portrayed our sweet little sociopath, from her religious near-masochism to her penchant for fragile and meek things. She will be a joy to have on the dash. Please have a look at this page prior to sending in your account.

OUT OF CHARACTER

Name: Marie Age: 22 Pronouns: She/her/hers Timezone: GMT+1 (summertime) Activity estimation: Fairly active. I can be online most of the day even if I’m not always writing. My roleplaying is usually really writing heavy so it’s obviously impossible for me to churn out 3+ replies every day but it’s not impossible, depending on my muse + real life commitments, which I have a few, but I believe communication is key so I’ll always let the admins and the group know. Your current activity requirements is perfect to me. Triggers: REDACTED

IN CHARACTER

Full name: Julie Middle West Age (DD/MM/YYY): Eighteen (b. 07/09/1978) Gender: Cisgender female Pronouns: She/her/hers Sexuality: Undefined. It’s not something Julie has quite explored and labels aren’t something she’s familiar with. Her family was never one to discuss sexuality any more than they had to (like the very awkward ‘sex’ talk they had on Julie’s sixteenth birthday) so her knowledge is fairly limited. I feel like it’s very likely she’s aromantic: whatever she feels isn’t love, even if she doesn’t know it. The same could apply to sexuality but she does find both boys and girls attractive… or, as attractive as someone can be. Occupation: High school student, babysitter & active member of the community. Connection to Victim: Julie likes to be friendly and when the Goode family moved to town, she was one of the first people to bake some cookies (slightly undercooked, with too much sugar and a taste no one is quite sure what it was) and welcome them to Devil’s Knot. Brian was the one to open the door, all polite smiles and thank yous. She wanted to pinch his little cheeks. She has a special fondness for meek, fragile little things. Brian was exactly that. She also volunteered to babysit. Alibi: “I was at church.” Julie had the capacity to mold herself into whatever anyone wanted her to be. Devil’s Knot is a small town and everyone knows each other, she knows the officer asking this question is doing it merely because he needs to. Surely he doesn’t think Julie West had anything to do with it. Her voice is sickening sweet and she wets her lips a bit more, hiding the chapness that constantly plagues her, before continuing. “I was helping my uncle setting things up for the gathering that was supposed to take place before. well…” she lowered her voice in a conspiratorial tone, as if what she was about to say was a secret “...the tragedy.” She shook her head as if to say “terrible thing” “poor child”. Then, she turned her eyes to the officer and while her lips didn’t move, there was something about her demeanour that felt like a smile, peaceful and concrete. I’m sure they believed her. Faceclaim: Elle Fanning

WRITING SAMPLE

Interlude: one day after Brian Goode’s disappearance.

This has become a ritual: clothes splayed on her bed, Julie is not one to lose too much time figuring out what to wear; it’s a no-brainer, the same variations of the same clothes always on hand but if there’s one thing her mother cherishes is her daughter and how thoroughly wrong she is about her: ‘my little doll’, ‘peach’, ‘darling’, ‘dearest’, all words so sweet with affection they almost make Julie cringe but that alone proves too much for her complexion.

It is Summer and outside the sun shines hot, an unrelenting heat shuning away any possible breeze. It is at such moments the name of the town makes more sense: this is Hell, this is Devil’s Knot. Julie giggles to herself without making a sound, congratulating herself on her good humour. Her mother stands behind her, unknotting her hair from the turbulence of her afternoon, twisting and pulling away any imperfections from her daughter’s mane. “You should wear the white one.” Of course, it’s always the white one, pointless to ever bring out any of the other possibilities out of the closet, but Julie likes to give her the illusion of choice. She knows what’s coming next, too: one of her mother’s tear-eyed monologue, the one time of the week she allows herself to wallow, the one time she contemplates the possibility that maybe her daughter isn’t as darling as she likes to think she is. “Your father and I often found you in the most inconspicuous places, you were always scaring us.” There it is, Julie thinks, her demeanour unchanged. “We never knew where you were, outside in the garden or roaming around the house, alone, always alone, the other kids begging you to play with them but you weren’t interested,” she continues to comb her hair, relinquishing the comb for her fingers, hacking at the knots as if they were patches of wilderness. “One day, we couldn’t find you for hours. We called you and you just wouldn’t answer, wouldn’t appear out of whatever spot you were hiding. We were so worried.” Mother’s voice starts to crack a bit, a pause to clear her throat and hold back the tears. “When you finally appeared, out of the woods, I didn’t recognize you at first. You looked so…” she didn’t finish, unable to find the proper words, perhaps too scared to say them aloud. “In your hands, there was a little bird and you smiled so wide when you saw us, despite the frown in our faces and your father’s quick-temper, already yelling at you. The bird was cupped in your hand, like a cage around it, so protective you were. Such a good girl,” she cut off mid sentence to add that last bit, the fingers that were until then combing the hair slowly stopping midway through, blonde locks tangled around them. “And then the bird started to beat its wings and the chirping, it was so loud, but still you wouldn’t let go. We tried to take it away from you but you held your ground, and the bird wouldn’t stop… until it did.” Mother wouldn’t utter the obvious, didn’t dare ask Do you remember? “Then you said, with a seriously injured voice, as if the bird had hurt you. The bird. I loved it. You always had a way about it, with love. It is suffocating.” 

She stayed in silence, still not facing her daughter, letting the story soak into the walls. Her bony hands finally let go of the hair and she took a step back, face twisting into her normal self. “Yes, the white… wear the white one.”

----

There was something in the hair, besides the excruciating heat. It was the weight of possible loss, the murmurs that became louder and louder and the gossip that started to gather around the church, little groups of people whispering in a false modesty, their practioned mournful looks of pity in their faces. Secretly, they were enjoying it. You could hear it in their voices, how despite the awful things they were saying, there was a kind of joy, electric and pulsing, to their voices. ‘What a tragedy, poor mother.’ ‘Poor boy, all alone out there, god knows where.’ ‘Who would want to do this to a child?’ ‘It’s just like twelve years ago…’ Of course, the story was still about a missing boy but already everyone was predicting the worse, the image of Phillip’s Silverman’s body hanging from a tree conjuring in their mind’s eye. Already, only a day after the boy’s disappearance, less pleasant voices started to rise.  ‘If you ask me, how come she didn’t notice her son being taken? She was right there’ ‘A single mother, with all these kids, what was she thinking?’ ‘That’s what you get for not having a man in the house’. Nevermind that twelve years ago it was the man of the house that went missing, and killed.

As Julie approaches the church, her beautiful white hair matching the prestiness of her dress, a tray of wrapped up heart-shaped cookies in her hand, the murmurs suddenly subside, everyone becoming silent for a moment before they see it is her arriving, and not the mother of the boy. “Good afternoon,” she says in the voice she has reserved especially for the church people, for the grown ups. They all smile wide, a little less fake than before and answer her in a chorus, like they’re one entity. Hello, Julie.

She goes inside. The church is mostly empty save for the widows dressed in black that practically live there. She walks to the altar, facing the sign of the cross with a defiant look, her heart beating slightly faster. She’s a holy thing, all white purity and her hands are clean, veins see-through and clear, but behind her eyes there’s something that makes everyone else avert their gaze. While the men are out in the woods looking for Brian, the woman gather in here, asking for help from above. Julie places the tray down on the table, set with a few other plates already. 

She’s been coming to this church since she was a little girl: she grew up under His watchful eye, looking down on her bruised knees from so much praying. When she arrives at the altar she makes the sign of the cross and murmurs something under her breath, presumedly ‘amen’ but it’s impossible to be sure. She goes down on her knees and claps her hands in front of her, blue eyes and swollen lips looking to the sky. Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. She thinks in her head. The hard wood makes her uncomfortable, but she thinks that’s part of what the church is, what religion feels like: uncomfortable, unsettling. She pushes herself harder into it, hoping it leaves a bruise on her knees.

ANYTHING ELSE?

The Wests are a staple of tradition… and boredom. They live in a house by the side of the road with a white picket fence, Mrs. West spends her days at the nail salon catching up on the latest and Mr. West is a generic white middle-aged man who wants to please his ageing house wife. They go to church every sunday and buy everything at the local mall. Julie’s education belonged solely to her mother, who dreamed of her babydoll daughter since she was sixteen. She raised Julie to be feminine: to tidy up the house, to learn how to cook. That last one proved to be one of Julie’s favourite things. She likes to do something from scratch, and the notion that she could put anything in there and no one would know is thrilling. “Oh honey, what is that? Tastes like lemon!”

Mrs. West also paid someone to teach Julie piano lessons. No one in Devil’s Knot knew how to do it so they went to the nearest city every Saturday. Eventually, Julie grew bored of it and, especially, of the teacher, a 20-something year old plump woman who treated her as if she was a child. Of course, the woman couldn’t have known that a mere couple of lessons would be enough for Julie to understand everything she was trying to teach her.

Julie’s performance at school is average. She doesn’t display too much interest in anything, fades into the background with her barely-passing-by grades at the end of the school. It’s not because she doesn’t have the brains: indeed, Julie’s IQ is way above average, bordering on genius, she just doesn’t like to stand out… in any way.

She is the neighbourhood’s resident babysitter ever since she was old enough to take care of herself and someone else. Julie loves children and she will tell you so… and if you ever hear your child crying from the other room while Julie is in there, not to worry… I’m sure she’s taking good care of him.

Her reputation as a responsible and trustworthy teenager is a reputation that means a lot more to her than any level of popularity that she could have longed for at school. Julie is not interested in the social hierarchy of such a meaningless place, laughs behinds the backs of every popular kid and feels a deep satisfaction whenever she remembers how she turned down the direct invitation from the cheerleading squad to join them.

Julie’s family is a very religious one. One of her earliest memories is going to the church, only three or four years old and dressed in pristine white (a ‘tradition’ her mother holds to this day). She never doubted there’s a bigger and stronger presence in the world, bigger than the town and the world but, as she grows older, she’s wondering if that’s Jesus or… someone else. She’s drawn to the old testament God, the ruthless entity who does not forget nor forgive. And, of course, ever since she’s old enough to understand, she’s drawn to… “the other side”. Not that she would ever say anything about it, not that she dared to investigate any further (yet). But there’s no denying the weight she feels in her chest, and how dark it is.

The woods is one of her favourite places in Devil’s Knot. Julie likes to be surrounded by the immensity of it, appreciates how someone can easily get lost and swallowed up by something so beautiful, seemingly harmless. She likes to wander about and there’s a special place by the creek that calms her; she likes to bathe there, feel the ice-cold water against her bare back.

Julie collects things: little things, meaningless things. Dried leaves, old books, dead bugs. She keeps them hidden in a box under the bed. It’s mostly things she finds in the woods… and some things she knows she probably shouldn’t have but the cops never came looking for...

Media inspiration:

Lizzie (2018)

Midsommar (2019)

Gone Girl (2014)

Neon Demon (2016)

Raw (2016)

Killing Eve (tv show)

Sharp Objects (tv show)

[oc-clusterfxck]

        Marco Alessandro  — Full Character Biography

✗ General Information: ✗ Name: Marco Alessandro. (FC: Gianluigi 'Gigi' Buffon). Nickname(s): Capitano, Ale, Maz. Gender: Cisgender male Age: 34 (10/27). Height: 6'3" (1.91m). Weight: 183 lbs (83kg). Born: La Spezia, Italy Current Residence: New York City, NY, USA and Turin, Italy. Sexuality: Pansexual polyamorous. Occupation(s): Professional footballer (goalkeeper), X-Man.

✗ Personality: ✗    Unknown to most outside his closest friends and family, Marco battled depression from a young age due to a traumatic event and these bouts of depression never really seemed to fade. It led to Marco remaining quiet and introverted, never really coming out of his shell as most children did with age. He doesn't speak much, mostly because English is not his native language, but also because he just isn't a very sociable person. He finds talking to and relating to people very difficult due to both anxiety, and the fact that he is generally very withdrawn person as a means of coping with his empathic abilities; he feels so much emotion on a regular basis from the people around him that he feels emotions are exhausting and he would much rather feel nothing at all. However, family, close friends and some teammates have been able to break through his tough exterior. In these instances, he can be very playful and childish, while also fiercely loyal and protective.    Marco also has an addictive personality, be it to drugs or anything else of the sort. When he is experiencing one of his many depressive episodes, he turns to cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana, though usually nothing worse due to a history of drug abuse and self destructive tendencies. As a teenager he'd do much harder drugs and nearly ended his career before it had even started, however, he kicked the habit... Mostly. The addiction to cigarettes remained, while he still took quite the liking to alcohol and simply learned to monitor his intake rather than completely give it up. He is still very much tempted to turn to his drug of choice, heroin, to shut off his mind and all his abilities. However, his addictive personality stems far beyond drugs. Even things he enjoys become a sort of addiction, in which he feels the need to continue at all costs. Football is a good example of this; although he is older and has accomplished so much in his career already and could very well retire and look back on his career with pride, he is almost addicted to the sport and refuses to give up just yet, or anytime soon for that matter. As of recent, the adrenaline of being a hero and saving lives is something he has become addicted to.    He also has quite the temper. Oftentimes he acts emotionless and is very good at keeping each and every emotion, whether his own or belonging to others, at bay. But, when he reaches his breaking point and finally snaps, it is hard for him to control his temper due to the sheer strength of the emotion. His eyes glow a bright red when angry, and occasionally his powers will light up his hands and some veins throughout his body, though it is very rare he will ever actually harm anyone. When he isn't fueled by rage, the colour remains a bright blue, bordering white. 

✗ Powers: ✗     > Ergokinesis:         1) Energy Absorption: The ability to absorb different forms of energy, removing it from the source and into their own body, making the source (if human) weaker. Marco tends not to do this because it causes some pain, especially if he is absorbing electricity.         2) Energy Attacks: The ability to release/use energy to attacks of various shapes and/or intensities, ranging from rays of pure energy that can knock over or even obliterate dozens of targets, or slightly singe them. Marco tends to focus on one enemy at a time when using this power, however, so as not to tire himself out.         3) Force-Field Manipulation: The ability to create, shape and manipulate force-fields, so that objects affected by the particular force relating to the field are unable to pass through the field and reach the other side. This aspect of his power is still relatively new to Marco and not very strong. It tires him out quickly.    > Empathy: The ability to fully interpret the emotions, moods, and temperaments of others without reading apparent symptoms. Marco literally feels the pain of others. More prominent is the emotional pain, which may result in odd mood swings depending on whatever it is he is taking in. This is part of the reason why he can't stand hospitals.    > Telepathy: The ability to read/sense another person's thoughts, communicate with them mentally and/or affect their minds/thoughts. Marco has managed to control this power, so, should he want to read somebody's mind, he would have to specifically focus on doing so. If he isn't focusing, he likely won't pick up on any thoughts, unless one is 'broadcasting' them (ie. dangerous thoughts, fears, anxieties, etc). Usually he avoids reading minds because he finds that it is intrusive. He can transmit his thoughts to others as well, so long as they have a strong connection to him (family, close friends, etc.). 

✗ Backstory: ✗    Marco was born in La Spezia, Italy, and had a relatively normal childhood, save for his strange abilities. He lived with, and was very close to his grandmother and spent almost all of his time with her. It wasn't until her death when he was a boy, before he'd even begun school, when he began to take notice of his powers. His mother and father were grieving her death, and he could feel the immense pain and sadness emanating from them — being so young and not understanding the concept of death, he couldn't understand the emotions or what an empath was, but he and his parents realized it was abnormal. As time progressed, he became more aware of his abilities, until they really reached full strength during puberty.    He was still very young — six years old — when he was given the ability to manipulate electricity accidentally, when in an accident that involved a fallen power line during a storm.  He was electrocuted, but, while the electrocution should've killed him, it hospitalized him for several weeks, with severe injuries and burns. Before then, his empathy and telepathy made him a mutant, however the accident in combination with the mutated gene created an adverse reaction. On the other hand, his father, who was also involved in the accident, was killed by the electrocution. His father's death took a toll on Marco, and at first, while in hospital, he refused to talk to anybody because he was sad, and being so young, he didn't know how to deal with it or express his emotions. The only people who could get him to talk were Giorgio and Vigor, who were often brought by the hospital to play, as Marco wasn't allowed to leave his bed. By the time he was allowed out of bed, he practically had to relearn how to walk again.     As he aged, his ergokinesis became more and more apparent in small accidents, and from then on, he began exploring the power on his own. He never told anybody outside of his family of his powers, fearing that they'd think he was insane. Despite Giorgio and Vigor being the only two who could make him smile and come out of his shell ever so slightly while in hospital, the incident altered his personality forever, and left him being his current introverted, generally stone-faced self. After losing his father he decided he didn't want to feel anymore, and so that was what he set out to do.    For a few years after his father's death, he seemed to be making some progress and was acting like a regular kid, albeit still shy and quiet, however his progress was set back in his teenage years, and he ultimately never really progressed the same way. Without a father figure in his life, and the fact that he was dealing with his powers all at once as they grew stronger, he spiraled again, and became very rebellious. He’d skip school, smoke, abuse drugs and alcohol, hook up with people within his friendship group, and get into fights; all the complete opposite of the way Marco had been. Due to the trouble he had been getting into, the football club he played with threatened to cut him, should he not smarten up. Being a substitute goalkeeper as it was, at first, he didn't take the threat seriously, but, one of the older players on the team, Ciro, took Marco under his wing and helped him get back on track again, becoming the father figure he needed. Alongside Ciro, Giorgio and Vigor again helped him overcome the dark period in his life.    As he grew older, he grew as a footballer as well, finally breaking out as the starting goalkeeper with the first team. He was immediately a fan favourite, keeping a clean sheet through his first match against another team that was considered the Italian giants. The more he played, the more he impressed, and in turn, the more teams started to keep an eye on him. He was contacted by several teams in his first few years as the starting goalkeeper at his club, but he remained loyal. It wasn’t until nearly five years later that he decided to accept a transfer, and only because it was to the biggest club in Italy, and the club he and his father always cheered for when he was a kid. He joined the club as a way of further making his father proud. In the prior year, Ciro retired from football – which was particularly hard for Marco to deal with – and he’d taken on a coaching position at the same club Marco joined, the following year. Giorgio joined the same team the next year, with a little convincing – and also begging – from Marco for Ciro to consider him in the first place. From then on, Marco never stopped impressing football critics all around the world, winning several league titles, and even the World Cup, despite his age. He eventually became Captain of his team, and Giorgio his vice captain, further proving how inseparable they were. Marco was the type of Captain who was stern and relatively demanding of his teammates. He always seemed to be serious and took nothing from anyone. His tough exterior didn't fool many of his teammates, however, who were able to break him down into being a relatively big softy when they were off the pitch. As a Captain, he acted like a father who lived by the principle of tough love, but he ultimately couldn't resist for long.    Eventually, Marco decided it was time to face a new challenge in his career and accepted a transfer to an American club. It seemed to many as a way for him to slowly ease his way into retirement, however this notion had always angered him as he had no intention of retiring and continues to play for the Italian National Team as well. Shortly after moving to New York to play for his new club, he was approached by Charles Xavier, who suggested he join the X-Men, claiming his abilities were too strong to simply go to waste like this. He explained that he had even contacted his mother when he was a teenager as his powers were too strong to overlook even then, but she refused as she didn't want her baby far from home, especially not during such a difficult time. Xavier knew it would be useless to try again in those years, however decided to make yet another attempt now that he had gotten older, moved to the city, and not to mention the fact that Vigor had since moved into the school as well. Marco knew who the X-Men were, considering he'd seen them in the news and such, and had considered seeking out Charles when moving to New York, but he was thankful that it was ultimately thankful Professor Xavier had approached him first. It took some time, but ultimately the final nail in the coffin was finding out that Vigor had also become an X-Man after transferring to the opposing team based in New York years prior that convinced Marco to accept the offer. Although Marco doesn't live in the mansion for the most part, he spends most of his time outside football there.    At first, all was well and good, but he often has difficulty working alongside the team - Scott in specific feels threatened by him, and he is well aware of it. It makes training difficult, and has ultimately created a rift between he and the X-Men.

See More...

[aridara]

So, apparently, @terfslurring​ didn’t like it when I called out her “Trans people reject the biological reality of sex and want to impose gender roles on everyone!” bullshit, and decided to write me some responses. By reblogging a completely different thread that wasn’t about trans people (it was about abortion), but whatever.

So I decided to answer them here.

First post: two quotes from Andrea Dworkin. Which have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Next.

Second post: A pamphlet about “How to spot MRA ideology”. Which basically tries to claim that Men’s Rights Activists and trans activist are somehow the same thing. Which is patently ridiculous.

For example, the first page claims that MRAs:

... Are anti-feminist. (True.)

...Focus on issues that, according to MRAs themselves, discriminate against men. (True in the sense that MRAs do claim that those issues discriminate against men; whether those issues actually discriminate against men or not is another issue entirely.)

...Often use the term “TERF” against feminists. (False. MRAs don’t care about whether feminists are against trans people or not.)

The second page claims that MRAs often label themselves “Trans Rights Activists”, or “TRA”. Which is completely and utterly false: the most cursory exploration of any MRA website (for example r/mensrights, A Voice For Men, Heartiste...) will show that MRAs are openly against trans people, frequently vilify them and declare them to be mentally ill, openly advocate in favor of forcibly institutionalizing trans people to “fix” them, etc.

There’s more lies in that pamphlet, like the lie that trans advocates deny the existence of sexism or the lie that TERFs do not claim that “trans women are violent predators, pedophiles and rapists”. But really, just the fact that the pamphlet tried to conflate a pro-trans group with a very anti-trans one is enough to dismiss it as total bullshit.

Third post... Oh, boy, I’ll need quotes for this.

Gender Critical Feminism

is a term used by those in the feminist community who consider gender a harmful social construct that is confused with -but distinct from -biological sex.

The World Health Organization defines gender as “the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women”.WHO: gender equity, human rights

Except that trans people are talking about gender identity, not gender roles.

Gender identity (which is what most people and especially trans people and advocates refer to when they say “gender”) is, by definition, self-determined. You decide the label of your own gender identity, and how to express yourself; nobody else can do it for you.

Gender role (which is what pretty much only trans-exclusionary feminists refer to when they say “gender”) is the idea that people should act in a certain way depending on what genitalia they have. By definition, you’re trying to tell other people what to do.

Trans advocates advocate in favor of letting everyone express their own gender identity however they want. TERFs falsely claim that trans advocates are in favor of imposing gender roles on everyone, whether they want it or not - which is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what trans advocates are doing.

Gender critical feminists believe the definition of “man” and the definition of “woman” should be based solely on biology, rather than on “masculine” or “feminine” personality traits or an innate sense of gender identity.

They recognize those with XX-chromosomes, ovaries designed to produce large egg cells, female genitalia, and a relatively high level of estrogen and progesterone as biologically female. They define “woman” as an adult human female.

They recognize those with XY-chromosomes, testes designed to produce small sperm cells, male genitalia, and a relatively high level of testosterone as biologically male. They define “man” as an adult human male.

Intersex people, who represent less than 0.02% of the entire population are those whose chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, and genitals do not conform to the biological binary of female or male bodies. Gender critical feminists recognize intersex people as a distinct group of people with an empirically diagnosable medical condition.

Alright. So, as I’ve repeatedly stated, pretty much all transphobes do three things.

1. They claim that there’s only two separate human sexes (plus eventually a small amount of exceptions, tiny enough to be ignored). According to Terfslurring, “gender critical feminists” fit the bill.

2. They claim that sex must be determined by looking at specific sex-determining characteristics. Again: according to Terfslurring, “gender critical feminists” fit the bill - they look at chromosomes (XX versus XY), gonads (ovaries versus testicles), genitalia (I suppose vagina versus penis), and hormone levels (high estrogen + progesterone versus high testosterone).

3. They believe that making everyone determine everyone’s sex in the “correct” way (see the above) is VERY important. This is blatantly obvious - whenever goes against the “there’s only two separate sexes” claim (for example, by saying that sex is a spectrum), gender-critical feminists actively oppose that someone and claim that they’re wrong. Likewise, whenever someone goes against the “chromosomes/gonads/genitalia/hormones determine a person’s sex” claim (for example, by respecting a person’s chosen identity, regardless of their genitalia), gender-critical feminists actively oppose that someone and claim that they’re wrong.

So, here’s something fun that I want to point out: transphobes love to claim that their beliefs are absolutely correct and precise, and that whoever refuses to determine people’s sex in the “correct” way must necessarily be in the wrong.

This also applies to the transphobes themselves. They don’t get to viciously attack anyone who goes against the “there’s only two separate sexes” claim when THEY THEMSELVES go against that same claim.

For example, let’s take everyone on the planet and divide them like gender-critical feminists want me to.

Everyone who has XX chromosomes, ovaries, a vagina, an uterus, and high levels of estrogen and progesterone will go in the “FEMALE” box.

Everyone who has XY chromosomes, testicles, a penis, and high levels of testosterone will go in the “MALE” box.

Everyone else will go in the “EXCEPTIONS” box.

Here’s the problem: the exceptions are way, way, WAY more than 0,02% of the human population. So, I can’t ignore them.

But if I can’t ignore them, then I must accept that there aren’t just two separate human sexes.

And if I accept that there aren’t just two separate human sexes, gender-critical feminists will declare that I’m wrong.

Conclusion: according to gender-critical feminist theory, gender-critical feminist theory is wrong. So, I’ll throw it out.

Moving on.

“Cisgender”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines cisgender as “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex; not transgender.

”Gender critical feminists object to the idea that their “self-identity” “conforms” with the feminine gender role they were assigned at birth. They reject their assigned gender traits and roles as a form of oppression, and do not “self-identify” with them at all.

This is more of that thing where trans advocates talk about gender identity, and gender-critical feminists talk about gender roles.

On the plus side, it means that gender-critical feminists have absolutely no argument against gender identity.

According to trans-inclusive feminists, being cisgendered means that biological women and girls have “cisgender privilege” which is defined as the “set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to having a cisgender identity”.

Gender critical feminists do not believe that both being biologically female and knowing you are biologically female makes you a member of a privileged class. Nor do they believe males who identify as female are more oppressed than actual females.

What follows is a long list of statistics about issues that women face due to sexism. I’ll spare you, because I don’t actually object to those statistics.

What I do object to, is Terfslurring’s claim that transphobia - which is oppression from cis people (men or women) against trans people (men, women or otherwise) - doesn’t exist because sexism - which is oppression from men (cis or otherwise) against women (cis or otherwise) doesn’t exist. Which makes as much sense as claiming that racism doesn’t exist because sexism exists.

Likewise, Terfslurring is trying to imply that cis women can’t be transphobic towards trans women, because cis women are victims of sexism from men. Which makes as much sense as “white women can’t be racist towards black men, because cis women are victims of sexism from men”.

Then there’s a bunch of lies that aim to absolve TERFs from their transphobia. I’ll just give you the highlights.

Despite claims that “transwomen are women” gender critical feminists note that laws based on gender identity allow any predatory male to claim a female identity and gain access to vulnerable women in shelters, locker rooms, restrooms, and prisons. 

Except that those laws have NOT helped predatory males to gain access to vulnerable women. For example, the “If we let trans women in women’s bathroom, predatory men will assault women in bathrooms!” panic? A complete fabrication made from homophobic groups.

Lesbian feminist Janice Raymond is frequently accused of having “blood on her hands” for single-handedly denying government funding and insurance coverage for transgender surgery/hormone treatment.

According to The Terfs.com “It was only after the NCHCT [National Center for Health Care Technology] published Raymond’s bigotry in 1980 that the US government reversed course in 1981 and took up Raymond’s views and rhetoric.”48

But the US state and federal government had never funded sex change procedures, so the accusation makes no sense.

This is false. Before 1981, the USA did fund trans care. The USA changed their stance after the OHTA Report was issued.

Still, trans activists claim a single sentence by Janice Raymond included in the 15 page NCHCT report (“transsexual surgery is controversial in our society”) caused the US state and federal government, under the Reagan administration, to reject government funding for sex change procedures. 

False. The NCHCT asked Raymond to write a report about the ethical and social aspects of trans care.

The USA state didn’t “reject government funding for sex change procedures” because of the NCHCT report, unlike what Terfslurring is claiming; it did because of the OHTA (Office of Health Technology Assessment) report. The OHTA report made three claims - one of which was that ”transsexual surgery is controversial in our society”. Two sources were used to back up that claim:

Raymond’s NCHCT report, which was about the ethical and social aspects of trans care (NOT about the economical or experimental aspects). The entire report - not a “single sentence”.

A review of Raymond’s 1979 book, “The Transsexual Empire, The Making of the She-Male”.

Along with allegedly denying the existence of transgender people, gender critical feminists are accused of being responsible for the high murder rate of transgender people even though transgender people are overwhelmingly murdered by men...

Except that gender-critical feminists promote the same “trans women are violent rapists” mentality that those men use to justify their attacking - and killing - trans women.

...and have high rates of involvement in the extremely dangerous sex trade.

44% of black transgender people and 33% of latino transgender people have experience in the sex trade. People involved in the sex trade are 18 times more likely to be murdered than others of their same race and class.

Funny that 1) you haven’t confronted statistics between cis and trans people;

And 2) you actively refute any testimony from transgender people. Including those black/latino trans people in the sex trade - especially when they try to tell you that, having experienced both sexism, racism and transphobia, they can tell the difference between the three.

But no. You just immediately assume that they don’t know what they’re talking about, and that all transphobia is just misguided homophobia/sexism/whorephobia/anything-that-isn’t-transohobia. Old tactic.

Despite this, trans activists rarely blame male sex buyers (or males in general)...

This is blatantly false. Just look at how often they talk about male transphobic groups.

Also, “male sex buyers”? ...Why do I suspect that you’re also against sex work (not “sex trade”, I’ve said sex work)?

There’s more, but frankly, I had enough.