#queer theory

[youregay]

I think people get mad at trans people for pointing out aspects of cis society that are invisible to cis people. this is where much of the 'trans people reinforce crazy outdated gender stereotypes' comes from I believe. when a transfem talks about having to buy makeup, wear dresses, take up less space, etc to be seen as a woman, she's pointing out the misogyny she's experiencing and how she's dealing with it. she's not creating these standards and it's cis people who are ultimately enforcing them; sometimes violently.

transmascs are accused of 'mutilating' their 'female' bodies and reinforcing the idea that women can't be masculine or strong or have 'male' interests but if men could have visible breasts without constant mockery, harassment, and misgendering than way fewer transmascs would get top surgery in all likelihood. even cis men get shit for having breast tissue; cis men with gynecomastia get told kys, and cis male celebrities are plastered on tabloids for having 'moobs'.

truly being cis can't save you, look at what's happening in women's sports rn. being Black or brown means you're not enough of a woman and that any and all of your actions are acts of male violence. gender is performative and pointing that out doesn't magically make it true, it was already true. jkr didn't gender that woman boxer based on biology, it's literally a lie she created, she gendered her based on white supremacist patriarchal ideas of gender which say that brown women can never be as much of a woman as a white woman and that 'real' women cry and are nonviolent; only men are boxers.

this extends to nonbinary denialism as well. if cis people really believed in exclusively two 'biological' genders/sexes they wouldn't treat ostensibly binary trans people the way they do. they don't want a trans man years into medical transition to start using the women's bathroom, they want him to stop existing. his existence is an inconvenient truth to them; gender really is a performance, you just shouldn't say that.

[hot-on-my-watch]

Mofftis: Also, we've thought about it, and we're not going to do a full queer reading i.e. M/M on the main characters.

BBC: ... But?

Moftiss: But we're otherwise making it as gay as humanly possible.

BBC: ...

BBC: ...

BBC: How?

Moftiss: In every way we can think of.

BBC: ...

BBC: .... just... just try not to get us sued.

sometime in 2009

BBC: Alright, we got the rights to do the Sherlock Holmes adaptation, how do you wanna do this?

Mofftis: Modern AU, Pining, Angst, Unrequited Love, Major Character Death, Friends to Strangers, Hurt no Comfort, Not Canon Complient, Original Character(s), Amnesia

BBC: ...

BBC: if you say so.

[clownfire]

queer reading riptide number bajillion or whatever:

Finn's writing on relationships on the oversea, after leaving behind his research career to join a pirate crew, reads to me as somewhat analogous to the stories of older people who come out as queer much later in life, after already starting a family. Entering a new exploratory period of life.

Rose-tinted glasses being part study, part semi-autobiographical treatise on relationships, compared to the stricter norms of Trench. And his explicit (notably overtly queer) work being locked away in a trunk.

[nondivisable]

I need to say something and I need y'all to be calm

if it isn't actively bad or harmful, no representation should be called "too simple" or "too surface level"

I have a whole argument for this about the barbie movie but today I wanna talk about a show called "the babysitters club" on Netflix

(obligatory disclaimer that I watched only two episodes of this show so if it's super problematic I'm sorry) (yes. I know it's based on a book, this is about the show)

this is a silly 8+ show that my 9 year old sister is watching and it manages to tackle so many complex topics in such an easy way. basic premise is these 13 year old girls have a babysitting agency.

in one episode, a girl babysits this transfem kid. the approach is super simple, with the kid saying stuff like "oh no, those are my old boy clothes, these are my girl clothes". they have to go to the doctor and everyone is calling the kid by her dead name and using he/him and this 13 year old snaps at like a group of doctors and they all listen to her. it's pure fantasy and any person versed in trans theory would point out a bunch of mistakes.

but after watching this episode, my little sister started switching to my name instead of my dead name and intercalating he/him pronouns when talking about me.

one of the 13 years old is a diabetic and sometimes her whole personality is taken over by that. but she has this episode where she pushes herself to her limit and passes out and talks about being in a coma for a while because of not recognizing the limits of her disability.

and this allowed my 9 year old sister to understand me better when I say "I really want to play with you but right now my body physically can't do that" (I'm disabled). she has even asked me why I'm pushing myself, why I'm not using my crutches when I complain about pain.

my mom is 50 years old and watching this show with my sister. she said the episode about the diabetic girl helped her understand me and my disability better. she grew up disabled as well, but she was taught to shut up and power through.

yes, silly simple representation can annoy you if you've read thousands of pages about queer liberation or disability radical thought, but sometimes things are not for you.

[wolfbirdgirl]

IDC what anyone else says, becoming more of a transfeminist has only made me MORE convinced that transmasc people have it hard too. it is one of the axioms of feminism that women are allowed to aspire to the aesthetics of masculinity as long as they never actually achieve it, and for men to aspire to femininity is sacrilege. and you see that in the way media portrays transmasc and transfem characters. Transmasc characters are always trying to be masculine as a front. they talk with deep voices, hang out with "the guys". but they are never allowed to actually achieve it. they can never be muscular. they can never be assertive. they can never have facial hair. They must always be short and soft. Conversely, trans women must NEVER have any hint that they are AMAB. they also cannot have facial hair, or body hair. Their voices must always be high and lilting, but in that way that's immediately clockable so no one could mistake them for a ""real"" woman. they cannot be strong or aggressive or anything even vaguely associated with men. Or, alternatively, if they're transfem nonbinary, they're just gay men with colorful hair, since everybody knows gay men are basically just women already. And of course, masc lesbians aren't real, don't worry straight men. a butch is just what you call a conventionally attractive woman wearing a sports jersey. At the end of the day, queer people of all types are accepted only as long as we can be relegated to the category of "Feminine but weird". That way, none of us can ever be any threat to the sanctity of the Holy Masculine. None of us are men or have anything to do with men. And while we squabble over who has it the worst, the patriarchy lives on.

[leikeliscomet]

Asexual theory 101

Right I keep getting asked on most of my asexual posts 'What does this mean OP? Where's the sources?' so imma make a quick ace theory 101 post so if anyone says they don't get it I can say I tried. Let's go:

'What does being ace have to do with race/racism?/There's racism in the ace community???'

Pretty much everything as people of colour experience various forms of sexualisation and desexualisation at the same time, which is why POC are rarely included in asexual representation:

Asexuals of Color Still Seek to Validate Their Asexuality by Ebony Purks

Stereotypes & media about Black masculinity made it harder to come out as asexual by Tyger Songbird

Your Assumptions About Black Queer Masculinity Are Erasing My Asexual Identity by Timinepre Cole

It's Time To Start Celebrating Black Asexuality in Media By Tyger Songbird

Yasmin Benoit: ‘People had a hard time believing that I could be Black and asexual and at Pride’ by Alastair James

Brown and Gray: An Asexual People of Color Zine

'What do TERFS/transphobia have to do with asexuality?'

There's a growing TERF conspiracy theory that asexuality is the side-effect of transitioning. The LGB movement believes the community is exclusively for 'same-sex attracted persons' and so identities that don't involve attraction e.g. the TQIA should be removed. Most backlash towards Yasmin Benoit, aroace activist, is from white TERFs and conservatives:

Acephobic conspiracy theories have transphobic and fascist roots by Sherronda J Brown

Anti-trans movement has a new target: The asexual community by Yasmin Benoit

'But how can conservatives hate asexuality if they hate sex?'

Because they don't and never did. If the term 'puritan' was used correctly in modern internet discourse, it would be known Christian puritans believe heterosexual sex for reproduction is a gift from god and mandatory so being asexual doesn't exactly fit with that worldview. Their beef is with any form of sex and sexuality that falls outside of cis heterosexual marriage, including asexuality. They're not anti sex but anti sexual autonomy:

"Anti-Sex" and the Real Sexual Politics of the Right by Lee Cicuta (ButchAnarchy)

The religious right is now targeting sexless marriages as “selfishness.” They Want to Ban Those Too by Tyger Songbird

Asexual people targetted by right-wing pundits following landmark report by Harriet Brewis

'What does being ace have to do with gender?'

It's commonly assumed that because patriarchy shames women's sexualities and considers all men's sexuality as biological and unavoidable, that ace women only and exclusively experience desexualisation whilst ace men only and exclusively are pressured into being sexual beings. This can true as a broad overview but it can vary based on race, disability, class etc. This also becomes complex for asexuals that exist outside the gender binary. This is known as 'gender detachment'.

Impossible for Men, Unremarkable for Women by Canton Winer

My Work on Gender Detachment and Asexuality Strikes a Nerve by Canton Winer

'There's asexual studies now?'

Yup. On the general experiences of asexual people in the UK, including discrimination in education, the workplace and healthcare:

The National LGBT Survey (2018)

Ace in the UK Report (2023)

Asexuality in the UK: Public attitudes towards people who experience little to no sexual attraction (2025)

Specific names:

Asexual theorists: Ianna Hawkins Owen, Michael Paramo, Julia Sondra Decker, Canton Winer (non-ace), Sherronda J Brown, Angela Chen

Asexual activists: Yasmin Benoit, Tyger Songbird, Marshall Blount (TheGentleAce)

Asexual artists: Kimberly Butler (TheAsexualGoddess)

And I'm gonna update this with more if they're worth adding. I don't wanna hear any excuses anymore or blame towards aces of colour, gay aces or trans aces for not being specific enough anymore. Read!

[whereserpentswalk]

Cis people getting trans surgeries doesn't scare me at all. I've seen cis girls who got top surgery for body mod reasons and they look cool as hell. I've seen ace people whose gotten bottom surgeries because they want to be less capable of sex. It's cool and normal actually.

[theswordwizard]

the AMERICAN* FUJO* Kickstarter is now live!

introducing a new literary journal about the intersections of gender & sexuality, power, and virtual space in fandom. By the editors who brought you works like yaoi zine, yuri zine, and butchverse 1 & 2.

(cover illustration by the incredible shalida)

AMERICAN* FUJO* is Alexis theswordwizard (thats meeeee :D) & tshirt3000's forthcoming anthology on fandom culture, trans identity, and general overanalysis. Our project tries to asterisk and complicate its categories of both “American” and “Fujo” as much as possible, interrogating gender and sexuality, power of all kinds, and the virtual communities we call fandom. 

We asked our contributors questions along those lines: How has being a fan affected your gender or sexuality? How has our gender or sexuality affected how we engage in fandom? Who is a fujoshi, who wants to be one, and who doesn’t get the choice? In America-centric fan spaces, what is necessarily suppressed? How can we trouble the category and dominance of “American” from within and without? Finally, what does it mean to be in a community that’s overwhelmingly virtual, as reliant on digital social platforms as it is on fictional media, both owned by another party? And what affects or acts are uniquely enabled by these virtualized desires and sexuality? 

Our contributors range from actual self-identified American fujos to writers who are emphatically neither. They answer these questions through illustration, comics, essays, and autotheory, developing creative ways to capture fandom and its discontents. The anthology surveys a wide range of topics, from transgender fujoshism (in any direction) to race and belonging within theoretically progressive fandom. We want to make the full vibrancy of fandom as accessible as possible, and theorize both its possibilities and its limits through this anthology. We hope you’re as excited to read AMERICAN* FUJO* as we are to make it!

Support or follow our campaign on Kickstarter!

[manichewitz]

straight men will write stories where two men choose each other over women over and over and again and the narrative will continuously emphasize the bond between the two men over all other emotional connections…and then get confused when queer people relate to that for some reason

[romancerepulsed]

aspec terms for beginners!

since it's trending right now, i feel like it might be helpful to clear up some basic aspec (but particularly aromantic, as we are the center of attention currently) terms. if you have absolutely any questions, i would be happy to answer, either in the replies, dms, or my inbox!

★・・・・・・★

the split attraction model (SAM): a model of human behavior that posits that, for some people, romantic and sexual attraction are not the same.

[most often this will come in the form of someone being aspec on one axis and allo (not aspec) on another. for example, a biromantic asexual may be romantically attracted to two or more genders, but sexually attracted to none. some people may even use SAM for allo identities– a bisexual lesbian may be sexually attracted to multiple genders, but only romantically attracted to women (note that this is not the only way that someone can be an mspec lesbian, just one way!). the SAM does not apply to everybody, not even all aspecs! there are non-SAM aros, for instance, who do not differentiate their aromanticism from their sexuality.]

aspec: a collection of queer spectrums centered around the lack of a certain attraction or identity. the most common spectrums under the aspec umbrella are asexual, aromantic, agender, and aplatonic, though there are many other ways to be aspec.

asexual: experiencing little to no sexual attraction.

[aces can still have sex– whether its because they experience some amount of sexual attraction or they just want to participate in sex because they find the act appealing in some other way. that being said, there are still plenty of aces who have not and will never have sex. it is a spectrum.]

aromantic: experiencing little to no romantic attraction.

[aros can still have romantic partners– whether its because they experience some amount of romantic attraction or they just find relationships appealing in some other way. that being said, there are still plenty of aros who have not and will never be in a romantic relationship. it is a spectrum.]

agender: having no gender or little relation to any gender.

aplatonic: experiencing little to no platonic attraction.

[similarly to aros and aces, apls can still form friendships if they so desire– whether its because they experience some amount of platonic attraction or they find friendships appealing in some other way.]

aroallo: combination of aromantic and allosexual– allosexual being someone who fully experiences sexual attraction. an aroallo, then, is someone who is aromantic but not asexual. aroallos often do not have a standard relationship with sex due to its romantic connotations and the stigma against loveless sex. someone having sex with someone else they do not love does not inherently make them aroallo, much in the same way that having a nonsexual relationship with a partner doesn't inherently make either participant asexual.

aroace: someone who is both aromantic and asexual. because aro and ace are both spectrums, an aroace may still experience some amount of attraction on either or both of those spectrums, or they may experience attraction of some other kind (platonic, tertiary, etc.), and that attraction may be only for a certain gender or genders– these are known as oriented aroaces.

queerplatonic relationship: a type of relationship that is defined only by the people within it. i have a post dedicated to explaining this in larger detail.

partnering: an aspec (usually aromantic) person who has and/or desires to have a partnership or multiple partnerships– romantic, queerplatonic, or otherwise.

non-partnering: an aspec (usually aromantic) person who has no desire to form a partnership of any kind.

romance/sex/plato favorable: an aspec who desires or would not reject a romantic, sexual, or platonic relationship. they are also generally not particularly bothered by seeing these relationships in their day-to-day.

romance/sex/plato repulsed: an aspec who does not desire a romantic, sexual, or platonic relationship and generally does not like seeing those relationships in their day-to-day. [x] repulsed people are not necessarily judgemental towards people who desire or participate in those relationships, they just do not desire them for themselves. repulsion often takes the form of discomfort or annoyance. [x] repulsed people are not necessarily cruel sticks-in-the-mud– they are perfectly capable of being respectful, and they very often are. repulsion does not always stem from trauma, though it certainly can.

romance/sex/plato positive: not to be confused with favorability, [x] positivity is the belief that romance, sex, and platonic relationships are human rights that should be supported and uplifted. someone can be [x] repulsed and [x] positive at the same time, because favorability/repulsion revolves around the self, and positivity/negativity extends to others.

sex/romance/plato negative: not to be confused with repulsion, [x] negativity is an inherently judgemental and harmful ideology. most commonly in the form of sex negativity, these ideologies are centered around the opposition to or personal judgement of people who engage in romance, sex, or platonic relationships. sex negativity in particular is embedded in western white supremacist societies and it is important for aspecs not to play into that.

those are the basics, but i have more information below the cut!

★・・・・・・★

> how are aspecs queer?

aspecs are queer because "queer" does not only mean LGBT. queer theory is about far more than just LGBT people– though they are undeniably a large part of it– queerness is any subversion of the traditional cisheteronormative standard. this includes things that cishets may take part in/identify with, because you do not have to be LGBT to subvert those standards. cishets who are gender-nonconforming are queer, for example. a good rule of thumb is that if you have to explain what you whole deal is to cishets, you're queer. queer does mean strange, after all.

traditional cisheteronormative conceptions of attraction, gender, and relationships do not account for aspecs. it is expected that everyone will one day form a traditional partnership with one other person, and that relationship will include sex (even if only for procreation, under some dogmas). virginity past a certain age is seen as a point of shame and something indicative of a larger problem in someone– in men, a red flag even. people past 30 without a relationship are pitied. our economic structure is build for couples and families– it's near impossible for someone to live comfortably alone. romance, friendship, and love are placed on a pedestal, treated as the meaning of life, the best thing anyone could ever experience. "love is the point of everything," as many posts on this site like to claim. people who reject these ideas are undeniably queer.

> i can get behind aros and aces, but the whole "aplatonic" thing feels like a stretch to me. how is not having friends queer? "platonic attraction" isn't even real.

aplatonicism is more than just "not having friends," and many apls have friends anyway, much in the same way that aros can date and aces can have sex. someone who does not have friends is not inherently aplatonic, they only are if they identify that little-to-no platonic attraction in themselves and choose to label themselves that way (just like how virgins aren't inherently asexual). still, apls who don't have friends exist, and they are all queer. what is a greater subversion of traditional cisheteronormative relationship structures than an outright rejection of what's seen as the most basic, fundamental relationship our culture has to offer?

you may not feel that platonic attraction is a distinct phenomenon in your own experience, and that's fine! ultimately, a lot of aspec terms exist for the utility and comfort of aspecs themselves. the SAM isn't for everyone, and platonic attraction isn't for everyone either. you do not have the authority to tell people what their own experiences are, nor should you care.

> i think it's sad that you're limiting yourself with these labels. you'll find someone one day!

for the broad majority of aspecs, our identities are not self-disciplinary, nor are they necessarily permanent. all queer people are capable of misunderstanding their identity or having a fluid identity– it is not a problem unique to being aspec. that being said, a lot of us may always be aspec and completely happy with it. being aspec is not a tragedy. the only thing i don't like about being aromantic is the judgement i receive from other people about it. non-partnering aspecs are not "missing out" on anything, because we don't even want the things we're rejecting in the first place. many of us are romance/sex/plato repulsed and are far more happy engaging with the world and with other people in different ways, because there is so, so much more to life than relationships, and it's wrong to presume that relationships are universally fit for everybody. telling an aspec that they'll find "the right person" one day is no different from telling a lesbian she'll find "the right man" one day. there is no "right person" for an aspec just as there's no "right man" for a lesbian. a lesbian is not "missing out" on a heterosexual relationship just because it's culturally perceived as superior and more fulfilling.

[disclaimer before anyone tries to do a "gotcha," i'm talking about a lesbian who is fully not attracted to men in any way. it's not like homophobes know the intricacies of gender identity and nonconformity as it pertains to homosexuality anyways.]

lastly, i wanna give a special shout out to the loveless aros and the relationship anarchists.

loveless aros are those who either feel little-to-no love as they understand it, or they are someone who supports the de-centering of love. they're worthy of a whole post of their own, but in summary: the loveless experience is all about finding joy in yourself and the countless things our world has to offer that are not dependent on the vague idea of love.

relationship anarchy is another concept worthy of its own post, but in essence it's an ideology aimed at abolishing the standard hierarchy of relationships (in the USA, depending on who you ask, its typically friendship < family < romantic partnership or friendship < romantic partnership < family) and allowing everyone the autonomy to define their relationships for themselves.

if i made any mistakes, let me know! and of course i'm willing to answer any questions anyone may have. :-3 thanks for reading my long ass post!

[intersexcat-tboy]

Unpacking the Ethics of “Tboy Strap”: Challenging the Language of Delegitimization

[PT: Unpacking the Ethics of “Tboy Strap”: Challenging the Language of Delegitimization]

Hearing about trans men or transmascs topping and instantly thinking "strap" perpetuates transphobia and contributes to antitransmasculinity specifically.

While not an exact parallel, defaulting to the assumption that trans men topping involves a “strap” is similar to defaulting to the assumption that trans women's breasts involve breast forms. Both assumptions overlook how these can be achieved through HRT or surgical means, while also distracting from their true (desired, or) transitioned bodies, reinforcing the unnecessary, often dysphoria-inducing misconception that their gender affirming adaptations are not legitimate aspects of themselves.

Many trans people use language intentionally to reduce dysphoria, but being externally subjected to such framing can reinforce the disconnection from their bodies and identities. It's different when someone uses this language to describe themselves personally, as it reflects their individual relationship. Nevertheless, when this language is applied generally to others, we must think critically about the broader concepts it promotes.

Strap-ons are primarily marketed to those without penises and have strong historical ties to the lesbian community. They are not generally called “strap-ons” when used by cis men who don’t have or cannot use their penis for penetration. Instead, they are simply referred to as hollow dildos or recognized as prosthetics—designed to restore or improve functionality of a body part. It serves to replace a valued, personally integral aspect of their body that is necessary for their quality of life, rather than merely an optional add-on.

In some cases, when used alongside an existing penis for double penetration, it would be more aptly called a strap-on. However, this usage typically doesn’t apply to trans men, as they usually don't use their natal penis for penetration alongside; if involved, it is either stimulated, enhanced, or extended, rather than acting as a secondary penis.

Additionally, in certain dynamics (e.g. orgasm denial, men in chastity, or sissification) the term “strap” is often used to emphasize a rejection of the integration with their identity as men, meant to deny them recognition of their “true” manhood by highlighting their perceived failure to embody masculinity by not using what “truly” makes them a man.

Within chastity, sometimes referred to in kink communities as “reverse pegging,” the humiliation often stems from the implication that because the “strap” is superior to his own flesh—more effective, more satisfying, larger, and thus more aligned with what a “real” man should be able to provide—he is being denied recognition of his “true” manhood. His failure to satisfy with his own flesh renders him lesser; his use of an external object for penetration is framed as proof of his shortcomings in masculinity—a mark of failure to measure up to the patriarchal ideal.

The deliberate focus on performance, emasculation, and delegitimization seeks to humiliate and degender the cis man, framing penetration not as a natural extension of his body, but as an artificial external act performed for someone else’s pleasure.

This concept is similar to how some trans women, or others with dysphoria related to having more erectile tissue than desired, refer to theirs as a “built-in strap” to create distance from their anatomy to alleviate dysphoria. While both can be used roughly to mean “this isn't my real penis, so I'm not really a man”, trans women’s use of the term contrasts with these kink dynamics where "strap" is used to question the legitimacy of the man's manhood, disempower or humiliate him. Instead, trans women commonly use it as a coping mechanism for dysphoria management and as a term of endearment, turning it into a source of empowerment rather than an insult.

In certain contexts, the way “strap” is used in reference to transmascs risks reducing their gender expression to a fetishized, sexual, or kink-based act, framing their sexuality as a performance or role-play rather than an authentic and true expression of who they are. This positions it as something /on/ their bodies rather than /part/ of them.

When "tboy" and "strap" are used together in a mocking or belittling manner, it often carries an underlying implication of infantilization. The combination can evoke images that reduce the experience of trans men to something less serious—like that of children playing dress-up with toys.

For transmascs, these framings reduce their penises to costumes that are put on and taken off for sex, rather than as an extension of their body and identity. They either draw on historical and cultural contexts to position trans men as women, or impose kink dynamics, such as humiliation and sissification, onto trans men's bodies, regardless of whether that reflects their experiences or desires. Both are dehumanizing and deny trans men the same recognition and respect afforded to cis men in similar contexts. Either way, the issue lies in how “strap” frames it as a temporary addition for sexual purposes, suggesting that it isn’t an intrinsic part or expression of their body or identity.

When the tools that help trans people live as our true selves are treated as something “on” our bodies or worn to perform, it reinforces the harmful idea that our gender expression is temporary, artificial, or an act.

Through this objectification, it becomes a decorative, extra addition, or accessory, rather than something inherent to themselves or a necessary function for their quality of life.

If this idea persists—the framing of penetration with an extension of oneself, rather than flesh and blood, as a performative or artificial expression of body/sexuality—it suggests that their experiences are somehow invalid or less authentic. This forces them to navigate the harmful narrative that their bodies, sexuality, and experiences are only legitimate or recognized as real if they conform to external standards. From this continuous confrontation with language that invalidates their bodies or sexuality, internalized shame can cultivate and fester.

All of these ultimately diminish their ability to fully express their gender and sexuality in, and on, their own terms.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

I am Sage's mother, better known as Nana. I adopted Sage after my son died when she was still a baby. She's been through six foster homes by then, but we loved her and she blossomed into a joyful, lively girl who made music and art.

Puberty began and COVID hit, and she was treated for depression and anxiety, at times very severe. Her teachers shared any concerns with me so her treatment could be adapted.

The transparency ended in August of 2021 when Sage started high school. She started a public high school and she told me that all the girls there were bi, trans, lesbian, emo and she wanted to wear boy's clothes and be emo. Because I saw it as just a phase, it was fine with me.

But at school, she told them something different: she was now a boy named Draco with male pronouns. Sage asked the school not to tell me, and they did not tell me even though I informed them of her mental health history and medication. If I had known, this would be a much different story.

She was terribly bullied. No one told me. But boys followed her, touched her, threatened violence and rape. Something happened in the boy's bathroom but for two days, the school told me nothing. They kept meeting with Sage alone and she became so distraught they called me to pick her up.

That evening, I found a hallpass labeled 'Draco' and Sage told me she was identifying as a boy, and that her counselor said she could use the boy's bathroom. She'd been jacked up against the wall by a group of boys. She was crying, terrified. I said just stay home, we'll figure it out. That was my last conversation with Sage for five months.

The night she ran, she thought, to a young friend she'd met online, she left a note saying she was scared of what would happen if she stayed. The sheriff, FBI, search dogs were called in. I dropped to my knees in prayer. Nine days later the FBI found her in Baltimore. My baby had been lured online, sex trafficked by DC then Maryland. She was locked in a room, drugged, gang raped and brutalized by countless men. It was night. The FBI told us to pick her up in Maryland the next morning.

We packed our cars with blankets and stuffed animals and arrived by 8 am, but we were told we couldn't see her, and were summoned before Judge Robert Kershaw late that afternoon. They didn't even tell Sage that we came for her. We finally entered the courtroom and Sage appears on a huge Zoom screen from a prison cell. She looks tiny and broken, and I cry out 'I love you Sage.' Sage responds 'I love you too, Nana.' But attorney Anisa Khan rebukes us. She is a 'he' and his name is 'Draco' not Sage. We were floored.

Khan accuses us of emotional and physical abuse, that we are misgendering her, even though we just learned she claims to be trans and we're willing to use any name and pronouns to bring her home. My husband was so tearful he kept forgetting the new pronouns, so the judge had the bailiff remove him from the courtroom. I was pleading for my child to be returned and treated for her unspeakable trauma. Judge Kershaw told me, if I use the word 'trauma' again, he would throw me out too.

For over two months, he withheld custody. He housed Sage in the male quarters of a children's home. Sage told me she was the only girl and repeatedly assaulted. She was given street drugs by the other kids and Khan told her she didn't care. She just wanted to win the case and all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Khan tried to prove abuse, but we were eventually cleared by both states of all charges.

Sage later told me Khan had told her to lie that we hit her. Khan even had Sage's school counselors testify against us, though they barely knew Sage and they didn't know us at all. Khan told my precious child I didn't want her anymore. I found out Sage never received any of the letters I sent her.

Sage ran from the Children's Home and disappeared for months. They told me she might already be gone forever, but I couldn't give up and I finally found a tip on her social media that led the marshals to her in Texas. She had been drugged, raped, beaten and exploited. This time I was able to be with her for the traumatic rape exam, and to bring her home.

Back in Virginia, she entered the mental health facility that Judge Kershaw had ordered, as it would affirm her as a male. The therapist began pressuring her to have her healthy breasts removed. Sage was too scared to protest, but she asked me to secretly buy her girl's clothes because she wanted to be a girl, but keep them in the car. It took a kind lawyer, Josh Hetzler to secure her discharge.

After almost a year. Sage was finally home. Safe. Alive. Sage is receiving professional trauma care. The first trafficker has already been convicted. Sage has nightmares, panic attacks, rape-related medical issues, but there's hope. I tell her she's not broken she's just scarred. And part of that hope is that in courageously sharing her story, others will be saved.

Sage said she doesn't know who she was back then. She wasn't a boy, she just wanted to have friends. But her school, the judge, the attorney and the doctor were all blinded by their ideology. The consequences for Sage were unspeakable.

Please don't let ideology harm another child. Let parents do our jobs. We know our children best and we love them a million times more.

Thank you.

==

Jesus Christ. This girl was exploited by everybody, except for her parents, who were villainized for literally nothing. It's opposite world.

And the fact that everybody with authority prioritized stupid shit like pronouns and trying to coax her further down into a fake identity, even against her will, and other ideological bullshit over her actual wellbeing is disgraceful.

The judge and attorney need to be disbarred, the therapist stripped of their license, and everyone who conspired to separate Sage from her parents fired.

[no-graffiti-no-future]

In the short time we have before trump is put back into office, I would suggest buying, compiling, and reading as much theory literature as you could.

Buying physical copies is always the best option, as they can’t take those away from you. If you need a digital version, it’s best you try and find a free copy or pdf you can download instead of buying it on a kindle or other online book market.

Collect and Share whatever interests you. Queer Theory, Race Theory, Political History, Anti-Facist fiction, anything that catches your eye.

The best way to prepare for a fight against facism is to be knowledgeable.

[gocelot]

Tangled the Series, remarkably, seems to have almost on accident stumbled into a powerful queer narrative- a narrative which was inherently doomed by the movie and at a broader level the company it’s based off of.

The original Tangled is, primarily, a story about child abuse. Flynn rider, for that reason, represents liberation, an escape from Gothel’s control. So we are content with their ‘happy ever after’- it’s thematically satisfying. However, in the TTS the opposing force shifts from an individual (Mother gothel) to an oppressive system- the society Rapunzel is suddenly expected to conform to and the expectations that come along with that.

Eugene comes to explicitly reinforce this system- he’s ready to settle down and says as much with his proposal in Before Ever after. Rapunzel panics, not because she doesn’t love Eugene, but because the prospect of going back to a form of ‘confinement’ in this case, marriage, after she’s just left the tower is uncomfortable for her. Rapunzel barely knows who she is, and already she feels pressure to conform to what everyone *expects her to be* This is also very present in her strained relationship with her father.

So, as her mind is reeling, what happens next? That’s right, her lady in waiting reveals herself to be a rough around the edges, gender non-conforming lesbian- with a costume change just to really nail this point home. And that night, the night where Rapunzel was supposed to promise herself to a domestic life with Eugene, is when Cassandra takes her out on a liberating outing- takes her past the literal walls she’s not supposed to pass. For just that one night, Cass sets her free- from the expectations of her father, from her boyfriend, from her kingdom. It’s that drive which triggers the return of her magical hair, setting into motion the events of the entire series, events which allow Rapunzel to discover herself.

And we’re supposed to watch that and NOT pick up on queer subtext???

[whereserpentswalk]

Freindly reminder that you can't hate men without being queerphobic. You can't think men are inherently more dangerous, violent or sexual, or any of the other things people say about men without being inherently queerphobic.

You can't think these things about men without branding mlm as outsiders who will always be unwholesome and dangerous without women to "civilize" them.

You can't think these things about men without thinking of wlw who are more masculine as being inherently lesser for being like men.

You can't think these things about men without making most transfems seem suspect for having masculine traits, or forcing trans women to prove themselves female enough to be valid.

You can't think these things about men without telling transmascs that they are inherently degrading themselves by transitioning, or forcing them to deny their transition to be supported.

You can't think these things about men without basically calling all enbies female, and then calling all masc enbies dangerous.

You can't think these things about men without easing aspec men and/or calling their identities into question.

You can't think these things about men without basically telling intersex people they don't exist, and making intersex women feel lesser for having male traits.

If you hate men you will hate every letter in the LGBTQIA for having traits in common with men. Feminism that views men as the enemy will inevitably be Feminism only for cishet women.

[unsolicited-opinions]

this is a genuine question: why do you think the queer community is so bad when it comes to the antisemitism and even the overt Hamas support? I can’t figure it out at all. Jews have always been a huge part of and even pioneers in the community. now we’re banned and harassed and unsafe. I see a pride flag online these days and feel terror because I expect a watermelon or red triangle to be right next to it, it’s happened so often. I’d feel safer in a church than at a pride event. why do they hate us so much now? even those of us who are also part of that community?

I've been trying to figure that out, too.

I was pretty sure that the origin was in postmodern academia, but I didn't know much more.

I have never formally engaged with Queer Studies, nor with Gender and Sexuality Studies,so I had no idea where to start.

Someone on #jumblr (I regret that I don't recall who) pointed out this collection of essays, Poisoning the Wells: Antisemitism in Contemporary America.

Chapter 2 is "Pinkwashing Antisemitism: The Origins of Queer Anti-Israeli Discourse by Dr. R. Amy Elman.

I'm way outside my wheelhouse here, despite holding a degree in one of the social sciences.[1]

I'm going to try to summarize this in a way which is shorter and more digestible than reading the whole thing, but there's a link to the whole thing at the bottom of this Very Long Post.

Disclaimers:

1. Acknowledging the depth of my ignorance:

I don't have the contextual knowledge to know with confidence if this is an intellectually honest argument, or even if the history is fairly presented. If anyone on Jumblr has more experience studying this topic, I'd sure welcome their thoughts.

2. A note to LGBTQ+ readers on "queer":

I understand that some in the LGBTQ+ community don't care for the term "queer," and some regard it as a slur. I have tried, for this reason, to cease using this word in my daily life. Below, I'm going to use the word "queer" a lot here, however, because Elman does and the scholars she discusses do. If you're among those who dislike this term or find it hurtful, I hope that you will not see my doing so as a slur or an insult

3. My editorial comments are in blue.

4. This is long. Not as long as the article itself, but long for Tumblr. You are forewarned.

Got a coffee or an energy drink?

Continue below the break:

Elman says the increasing appeal of queer politics was for specifically millennials, and the BDS movement actively pursued a "queer" plank to broaden its appeal.

This tracks.

She says that Leaders from both movements saw a potential for synergy, with some suggesting queers could transform BDS from a "vanguard movement" to a "popular" movement.

Elman gives a history of the "Queer Movement" in which she argues its adherents are particularly susceptible to BDS's "pinkwashing" accusations.

She says:

- "Queer" is an intentionally broad, deliberately ambiguous term encompassing various sexual and gender minorities who reject traditional LGBT politics as conservative.

- The queer movement emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s in opposition to both neo-liberalism and feminists who critiqued sadomasochism (S/M) and the sex industry.

- This opposition to feminist critiques of the eroticization of inequality, says Elman, is a crucial factor in understanding queer politics' susceptibility to antisemitism.

- Elman says early queer activists prioritized passion over reason, making them potentially vulnerable to harmful ideologies.

The Feminist Sex Wars

- There was conflict, says Elman, between lesbian feminists and proponents of S/M, arguing that the increasing acceptance of S/M within the lesbian community weakened its ability to resist fascist values.

I don't see the need to politicize whatever one enjoys in private as long as it is safe, sane, and consensual, but okay.

- Elman draws a parallel between the eroticization of fascism in the past (referencing Susan Sontag and Sheila Jeffreys' concerns about Nazi aesthetics in queer subcultures) and the current uncritical embrace of certain radical ideologies.

- Elman says the embrace of "outlaw" identities and the downplaying of the harmful implications of S/M practices (including the use of fascist symbols for parodic purposes) are problematic trends within queer politics.

Which made me think of seeing Queers for Palestine protestors calling Jews "Nazis" and combining the swastika with the mogen David.

- Elman argues that the rise of queer politics led to the silencing and marginalization of lesbian feminists who focused on women's rights and opposed the industrialization of sexuality and S/M.

Like Andrea Dworkin?

- Elman says Queer Theorists have dismissive attitudes towards lesbian feminist concerns and that the once-flourishing spaces and intellectual contributions of lesbian feminists were diminished within the broader "queer" coalition.

As a cishet man, I had thought the broadening of the movement, the addition of each letter in LGBTQ+, gave all parts of it more strength, but it seems obvious to me now that lesbian concerns aren't always the same (and may not be aligned with) gay men's concerns, enby concerns, trans concerns, etc.

I can see how being subsumed by a larger movement could dampen the voices of its different component populations and diminish the perceivability of the points on which they don't agree.

Judith Butler features prominently here.

- Elman seems to say Butler's nuanced stance on her lesbian identity is rather different from her non-nuanced Jewish identity, and it is "as a Jew" that she declares her anti-Zionism.

...in 1989, [Butler] was asked to provide a lesbian lecture and responded that she would rather describe herself as "being" homosexual because identifying as lesbian felt "neither true nor false." Yet, she demonstrates no similar reluctance to claim a Jewish identity years later. To the contrary, it is "as a Jew" that she condemns Israel and vows to develop a Jewish opposition to Zionism.

A decade after Butler vacillated over being lesbian, she similarly described her nearly two-decade-long relationship to S/M discourse as "active and complicated," a position in keeping with the tenor of her fourth book, The Psychic Life of Power. In it, Butler speaks of her "paradoxical" embrace of "injurious" names because they "constitute" her "socially."

Huh. Jewish identity without nuance? I'm not sure I've ever seen that...?

- Elman says Butler's engagement with S/M discourse and her concept of erotically embracing oppressive power structures are linked to the potential eroticization of antisemitism and the demonization of Israel.

As Martha Nussbaum explains, the central thesis of The Psychic Life of Power is that “we all eroticize the power structures that oppress us, and can thus find sexual pleasure only within their confines.”

If Nussbaum is correct, there may be no better explanation for the ongoing eroticization of antisemitism and the demonization of Israel.

So concerned was Nussbaum by Butler’s influence on American women’s studies programs in the 1990s that she concluded,

"There is despair at the heart of the cheerful Butlerian enterprise. The big hope, the hope for a world of real justice, where laws and institutions protect the equality and the dignity of all citizens, has been banished, even perhaps mocked as sexually tedious. Judith Butler’s hip quietism is a comprehensible response to the difficulty of realizing justice in America. But it is a bad response. It collaborates with evil. Feminism demands more and women deserve better."

"Hip quietism" makes me want to read more Nussbaum.

Butler was chair of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (later renamed Outright First)...which was a UN recognized organzation. While the name might cause the casual observer to to think it would focus on gays and lesbians, it has seemed to focus on Israel.

Outright First claims it advances LGBT rights through awards consistent with its agenda, yet the first of these was not made until 2005, fifteen years after its founding and the same year that BDS was ostensibly established.

That year, the organization honored Mary Robinson, who decriminalized homosexuality as Ireland’s first woman president (from 1990-1997).

Robinson also served as the UN’s first woman High Commissioner for Human Rights and, in this capacity, Robinson oversaw the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.

Despite the conference’s noble rhetoric, the antisemitism that it manifest led Robinson to resign in disgrace.

It was in Durban that “anti-racist” organizers revived the scurrilous Soviet charge from decades earlier that Zionism is a form of racism and Israel is an apartheid state. Although Robinson called these allegations inappropriate and unacceptable, she did not reject the conference’s final declaration that contained them.

Ach. The feckin' Irish again.

...in 2008, Desmond Tutu became the second recipient of the organization’s “Outspoken” Award. Tutu, a Nobel prize winning anti-apartheid activist, is also an outspoken critic of Israel for “practicing apartheid” in its policies against the Palestinians. While he too condemned bigotry against gay men and lesbians, like Robinson, Tutu may be better known for his opposition to Israel than for any long-standing and deep defense of LGBT rights. Thus, one wonders whether the “critical partnerships” Outright First fostered were less those that promoted the world’s LGBT communities than those that helped legitimize anti-Israel activism.

This example, it seems to me, is a more appropriate illustration of “pinkwashing”:

that is, pinkwashing may be less about bolstering Israel’s reputation than providing Israel’s sworn enemies a seemingly progressive mask behind which to conceal their animus.

Pinkwashing, Triangles, and Softcore Holocaust Denial

The term "pinkwashing" initially referred to corporate profiteering from pink-themed breast cancer awareness campaigns.

Elman contrasts this with the reclamation of the pink triangle by gay activists as a symbol of defiance after the Stonewall riots, noting that this is a "disturbing" appropriation of a Nazi symbol.

Years before American corporate executives bolstered sales through gender-conforming pink promotionals to women, American gay male activists openly embraced pink to signify their gendered defiance after the Stonewall riots of 1969.

This political reclamation manifested itself in their adoption of the pink triangle Nazis used to denote and facilitate the destruction of those men they identified as homosexual. That this exclusively male Nazi symbol came to signify LGBT rights is disturbing and reveals a movement that, whether through ignorance or choice, embraced a fascist aesthetic

Is that fair? The idea of reclaiming is to take the symbol away from the oppressor and redefine it, right?

ACT UP's use of the pink triangle and its analogies between the AIDS crisis and the Holocaust are presented as examples of "softcore" Holocaust denial that paved the way for later strained comparisons.

By 1987, the Nazi pink symbol gained American prominence when the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) used it for its logo, which also read “Silence Equals Death.”

Founded by Larry Kramer, ACT UP’s mission involved combating the public’s indifference to “the AIDS Holocaust.” Equating the epidemic with Jewish genocide, ACT UP’s gay pride float that year depicted a concentration camp within which activists posed behind barbed wire. Kramer’s book, Reports from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist, further popularized this agitprop and the pink triangle marked its cover. As the HIV death toll mounted across the globe, ACT UP’s rhetoric and the Nazi triangle became internationally ubiquitous

So Elman believes this was softcore Holocaust denial through universalization/appropriation by the queer movement.

Holocaust images...absent the Jews. We see a lot of that on social media from the LGBTQ+ community right now.

BDS and "pinkwashing"

Sarah Schulman, an ACT UP alum, was as a key figure in popularizing the "pinkwashing" accusation against Israel. Here's an inside look at how that happened:

And here's Schulman's 2011 NYT piece:

If you need to get past the paywall, use this link.

Schulman's argument is that Israel's promotion of its LGBTQ+ rights is a cynical tactic to conceal human rights violations against Palestinians.

It couldn't be a natural outcome of an electorate with a majority which is socially liberal enough to not want to persecute their LGBTQ+ family members? Why not?

Oh, it's because Jews are sneaky and devious /s

Elman critiques Schulman's anti-racist pretense, arguing it invisibilizes Israel's diverse population and misrepresents the motivations behind Israel's LGBTQ+ initiatives.

The investment in Tel Aviv as a gay vacation destination is acknowledged, but its negative framing by BDS as "pinkwashing," says Elman, creates not just an entry point for antisemitism, but also a permission structure.

Soon "pinkwashing" took on a different meaning from the one intended by the women who originally coined it.

When applied by "pinkwatchers" whose sights are trained exclusively on Israel, the accusation became an entry point for antisemitism.

According to Wikipedia, it now describes "a variety of marketing and political strategies aimed at promoting products, countries, people or entities through an appeal to gay-friendliness in order to be perceived as progressive, modern and tolerant."

As Cary Nelson observed, "the pinkwashing accusation gives license" to condemn Israel, while discounting all of its achievements (e.g. legal protection against sexual orientation discrimination, recognition of same sex marriages, joint adoption, and open military service) without any reservation.

Want to know the first thing Sarah Schulman posted to Twitter on 10/7/23?

Here's Canary Mission's page about Schulman.

Elman continues:

There may be no better way to simultaneously encourage antisemitism and dismiss Israel’s LGBT initiatives (whatever their shortcomings) than to insist those efforts undermine the rights of Palestinians.

Were it not for BDS double-speak, Schulman could not maintain that she “never” betrayed queer people, despite her having acted in “solidarity” with “presumably straight Palestinians” to oppose Israel’s LGBT community.

Like countless other “queers” who take “pride” in being “ashamed” Jews, she received political “guidance” from “presumably straight” folks like Omar Barghouti, the purported founder of BDS.

Known for his explicit desire to “euthanize” the “Zionist project” and his vocal opposition to the two-state solution, Barghouti insists that not even “the end of occupation” will end his struggle.

Elman wraps up:

Like “Islamophobia,” “pinkwashing” and its corollary “homonationalism” are accusations often employed to silence critics while simultaneously providing those who issue them the appearance of being concerned about LGBT people and other minorities. Yet, this posturing offers little in return.

In fact, these denunciations are in keeping with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s longstanding assault on homosexual conduct, gender equality, and universal human rights at myriad UN fora under the insidious cover of anti-racism and anti-imperialism.

That BDS similarly promotes itself through the cynical appropriation of social movements and ostensibly progressive claims that vilify the Jewish state represents a consummate act of public diplomacy in which anti-semitism itself has been pinkwashed.

You can grab a PDF of the whole chapter here.

You can grab a PDF of the whole book here.

You read the whole thing!

Have a cookie: 🍪

_________

[1] I agree with Neil Postman that the social sciences would more accurately be called moral theologies...and are not sciences.

You can read more about Postman's point here if you want to know what I mean by that..