#reminder that i use the word queer as a community term

[uncanny-tranny]

Hi 💛 I wanted to ask you something, it's been bothering me lately: I've always known that I'm attracted to people regardless of gender. At 15 I called it bisexual. At 17 I started using the label pansexual. Came out as a trans man at 23. I'm now 26 and I'm not sure if bi or pan work for me anymore. I know that I'm still attracted to people regardless of gender, but my experiences as a man in society have made the label gay resonate a lot more with me. Is that okay? What does this mean? Confused

It means whatever you want it to mean. People all across the queer community have used "gay" as shorthand for decades now (maybe including queer people you love). If you just don't vibe with bi/pan on their own, then you don't have to have them on their own. There's nothing wrong with being bi or pan, but there's also nothing wrong with feeling like that doesn't quite encapsulate your relationship with your queerness.

Basically:

[jilted-love]

You all need to be reminded that Queerplatonic Relationships are long term committed relationships that originated from aromantic people who want the consistency and loyalty in romantic relationships without the expectations of performing romance. If you don't want to commit to a platonic relationship, then you don't want a QPR ("platonic" word here is used as the opposite of "romantic" instead of "sexual" because some queerplatonic partners can be sexual and others can be non-sexual).

QPR is not just a quirky term for intense emotional friendship because any friendship can have that intimacy but not all friends commit to each other in the way that makes the relationship queer. The queerness in queerplatonic means we have a relationship that's so devoted and yet platonic because we are debunking amatonormativity here that dictates to us (by society) that romantic relationships must be the priority.

If you just want to kiss and hug your friends and hold their hands or anything else intimate but you don't think you can be committed to that friendship, it's not queerplatonic relationship you want. If you're misusing queerplatonic term, you're erasing the meaning of this word that helps aromantic people communicate our boundaries, expectations and experiences as queer people. Please just respect us. Treating QPR like it's just a "friendship" is as rude as treating it as "romance lite". I want a commitment but no romo. It's that simple.

Edit: This is not gatekeeping or exclusionary. All this post is saying is that QPR is a non-romancebased commitment. Anyone can have a QPR if you can be committed to people even if you aren't expecting romance from them. Any misunderstanding over this is not my responsibility. Maybe read better.

[anistarrose]

I just saw a post with a very dangerous conflation of terminology going around (and on International Asexuality Day, no less!) so as a polite but firm, and apparently much-needed reminder:

Sex repulsed/averse, sex indifferent, and sex favorable are terms used by the asexual spectrum community to describe individual feelings and interest levels towards sex. You don't have to identify with any of these terms (all of the time, or any of the time) to be ace-spec, but lots of ace-specs consider them useful vocabulary — since we do, after all, exist on a wide spectrum.

These terms are not the same thing as being sex negative or sex positive, and they should not be used interchangeably! Sex negativity and sex positivity refer to attitudes towards sex in a societal setting, and the associated regressive, queerness-punishing societal norm (sex negativity) or movement to fix/overthrow that societal norm (sex positivity).

Calling sex repulsed asexuals "sex negative" conflates ace people's individual feelings about sex with societal sex negativity and cultural conservatism. Maybe not to you using that term, knowing what you mean, but to potential readers. And that doesn't mean you're consciously aphobic or anything, but it's still a vital misconception to address — because implying, accidentally or otherwise, that ace people are invariably sex negative or even responsible for sex negativity is pretty fucked up!

It encourages acephobia in queer communities (especially online ones), drives wedges between people who would otherwise be among each other's closest allies in the fight for queer liberation... and even neglects the fact that even sex repulsed asexuals suffer harm from sex negativity, too! Sex negative culture doesn't let you talk about asexuality without being accused of "oversharing," or "corrupting the youth!" That's, like, one of the aphobe talking points, even though it's just recycled homophobia and transphobia, and it proves the need to truly understand asexuality and sex positivity as forces that are by no means inherently opposed!

TL;DR: Please don't conflate sex negativity with sex repulsion or aversion — it feeds misconceptions that in turn feed aphobic discourse. This sex positive, sex averse ace, and many others in the same boat or similar boats, will all thank you for using the right wording!

[alexandraisyes]

Hey guys, here's a reminder that if queer people are allowed to reclaim slurs against them and POC people are allowed to reclaim slurs about them then so are people with ASPD.

We are allowed to reclaim the terms sociopath and psychopath because we are the people those terms are targeted against. If you don't have ASPD? You don't get to have an opinion.

Everyone I've met and conversed with who also had ASPD are comfortable with the terms sociopath and psychopath being used to describe clinical ASPD.

Saying that we are not allowed to reclaim the term because you personally don't agree with it? Good for you, but you're not the one being stigmatized against. You don't get to have an opinion about this because you are not the one being affected by it. Stop being offended for other people who are trying to make the world a kinder place for themselves.

Empowerment and Ownership: Reclaiming a term can be a way for individuals to take control of a label that has been used to stigmatize or dehumanize them. By owning the term, they can redefine it on their own terms, reducing its power to harm.

Challenging Stigma: The terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" are often used in a derogatory manner and can contribute to the stigma around mental health disorders. Reclaiming these words can be a way to challenge and change the narrative, promoting a more accurate and compassionate understanding of ASPD.

Creating Community: Reclaiming a term can foster a sense of solidarity and community among those who share similar experiences. It can help individuals with ASPD connect with each other and advocate for their needs and rights.

Promoting Awareness and Understanding: By reclaiming and redefining these terms, people with ASPD can raise awareness about the disorder and its complexities. This can lead to greater empathy and understanding from the public and professionals.

Rejecting Misuse: Reclaiming terms can be a way to reject the misuse of these words in ways that are harmful or incorrect. It can help ensure that the terms are used in a manner that is respectful and informed.

Affirming Identity: For some, reclaiming these terms may be a way to affirm their identity and experiences. It can be a way to express pride in who they are, despite societal prejudices.

If POC and LGBTQ+ people get to reclaim terms used to stigmatize them then so do we. Denying us of that because you don't personally agree with it is rude, and calloused, and I'm going to fucking say it, borderline ableist. These words are not for you, they are for us.

And I choose to have pride in who I am instead of letting people ridicule and demonize me for it. I'm a clinical sociopath, I have ASPD, and people who don't have ASPD are going to have to fucking accept that because they are not me and they do not get a say in this.

[bonefall]

hi! just discovered this blog from your hearing loss post, which i ADORE. throughout it you mentioned pawspeak, and i was wondering if you had any sources/posts about it, or could describe its fundamentals very simply? sorry if youve already answered this!!! youre very cool

There's not too many fundamentals to share, really! Pawspeak is just the fandom term for a Clan cat sign language. Most people have their own takes on it.

Some people like to make it use two paws, other like to do a single paw in tandem with ear flicks and tail movements, some have omitted paw movements entirely and just use ear and tail signs. Most people aren't my queer ass who worked with a friend to ACTUALLY create a full Clan cat language with its own grammatical structure; so likewise, they're just making a cat approximation of a sign language.

So there's no rules! Do as you please! You can just adapt ASL or BSL for cat paws if you want, the same way no one bats an eye when people animate the cats lipsynching to English.

I would just try to remind you, and recommend, that your sign languages evolve from deaf people.

It's both a misconception, and insultingly common for media to show hearing people inventing sign language for the benefit of their deaf friends and family, when that's not how that happens. Deaf people have agency, theyre not just waiting for an abled person to bestow language on them. Deaf communities, and communities with high rates of hearing impaired people, come up with unique sign languages if they don't already have one!

These languages are often studied by linguists as examples of "isolate" language families, which mean they evolved without ANY genetic 'relation' to another language. Nicaraguan Sign Language is a neat example of that!

(The "hearing people invent sign" thing is perpetuated by the myth that Francosign, the language family containing ASL, was invented by one really nice philanthropist. It wasn't. The man took a bunch of words from an existing deaf community in Paris, which was likely a language under the BANZSL family, didn't care to record or learn what they were ALREADY speaking, and made up his own clunky system called "methodical signs" to make a "signed version" of French. This was practically useless for casual use. Actual deaf people mixed this with the languages they were ALREADY using to talk to each other to make new ones; one famous example of this is actually ASL.)

For BB I actually plan to show Pawspeak evolving as an isolate language after the Clan's move to the Lake. It's going to be born out of Gatherings and Aftergatherings-- while Clan cooperation has actually lead to a period so peaceful that it's allowed a proper community to form. Now with a stable population of hearing-impaired cats of all Clans, each of them bringing new signs and phrases home, it can standardize into a true language around the lake.

So then I can show how most of the signs come from RiverClan, mix with the signals WindClan uses to communicate across the moor, show how violent signs tend to be tail-based because they come from battle commands, etc.

It fits the themes of BB, and gives me a chance to show how fascinating sign languages really are. Even though it'd make sense for them to already have one, tbh, I think it's worth it. (Or maybe have Lake Pawspeak basically be a language that combined the several 'pawspeaks' of the various clans.)

[heterophobicdyke]

do you think bi women who only date women could use femme/butch? i’ve read that it was used by bisexuals since it was developed before the communities separated. i’m totally fine with lesbian being an exclusionary label though it wasn’t in the past, because words evolve and meanings change. but i’m not sure that should mean bi women don’t get to use terms they historically have? i already feel like since the label bisexual wasn’t used/widespreadt for a long time, bi women who participated in the lesbian community in the past get forgotten/ignored. i do however realize queer people tend to do a lot of history revisionism, so i wanted to hear your opinion on it.

ps. obviously if someone dates/seeks men they shouldn’t call yourself any of those terms.

I’m sorry but I am so so so tired of people making up that “all SSA women used to use lesbian.” No they didn’t. I even reached out to multiple lesbian historians and literally everybody said they have heard this shit before but nobody backs it up with meaningful proof.

There are fakers of every label, of course. But what bisexuals refer to when they say “lesbian used to be for bisexuals and lesbians” is because many more lesbians (female homosexuals!) were married or in longterm relationships with men before coming out because they literally had no other choice. Bisexuals take that to mean the lesbians are just stealing every SSA woman from history, rather than understanding why lesbians entered those relationships without desiring men at all.

You know where most bisexuals were back in the day? In desired relationships with the opposite-sex. Like today. But even more often back then, for reasons I hope are obvious. Same-sex relationships were even more dangerous to be in, which means less OSA women are going to risk it all on a SSA relationship because they’re capable of finding comfort within the heteronormative expectation. They’re able to find accepted love.

The true revisionism is this anonymous ask. “Lesbian” as a term to be identified with really only took off in the 1960s (but it is first documented in the late 1800s - around the same time “bisexual” was first documented). The word lesbian and the word bisexual gained popularity within a decade of each other, in the 1960s/1970s. And previously to that, in the 50s, lesbians mainly called themselves homophiles or gay. “Lesbian” became a way to carve out our own terminology seperate from gay men, during a period filled with so much frustration towards their misogyny within the gay rights/homophile movement that we turned to radical feminism - only to find so much homophobia. So if what you mean by it being a shared term is when bisexuals appropriated lesbianism by calling themselves “political lesbians,” literally using the ‘political’ because they KNEW they weren’t actual lesbians, then here’s a friendly reminder that homophobic pockets of OSA women appropriating lesbianism does not mean that the term was for all SSA women.

There are still bisexuals who believe everything lesbian, include butch/femme, should be for bisexuals (especially female-leaners), because nobody erases bisexuality like bisexuals. Bisexuals need to socialise and build community more with fellow bisexuals because y’all can’t keep complaining about the world seeing things as straight or gay when we are literally begging you to admit your bisexuality and stop hiding behind homosexual terminology. Nobody thinks of bisexual when they hear butch/femme. You would be willingly using terms people associate with lesbians, as a male-attracted woman. And while I’m sure the odd bisexual woman used those terms in the 1930s-1950s, most of you were in desired marriages with men safe from accusations of perversion.

How many bisexuals would have been in butch/femme working class dyke bars in the 50s? Come on. It’s like saying bisexuals should be able to reclaim “dyke” because they may have had it shouted at them before. What about GNC straight women? Should they, too, get to call themselves “dyke” because a man might shout it at them from a car window? I hate how downplayed it is that bisexuals tend to focus their attention on men. It’s not their fault because male/female relationships are normalised and it genuinely is hard being gay or gay-passing. But you can always go back to men and you usually do. So dabbling with lesbian terminology is not on. Create your own terms.

[tieflingkisser]

Lily Gladstone Is Not Two-Spirit. They Just Use Rolling Pronouns

“Two-Spirit” refers to specific cultural roles within Native communities; it is not the same as being Indigenous and nonbinary.

Under the Bridge star Lily Gladstone took to X on Thursday to clarify and educate people about the intersection of their indigeneity and queerness. Gladstone, who is Blackfeet and Nimíipuu, told People during a December 2023 interview they use she/they pronouns. Some people online took that to mean the actor is Two-Spirit, which she is not. “As a Two-Spirit person, where and when did Lily Gladstone say they were part of our community?,” Yuè Begay, a Diné Two-Spirit organizer and advocate, wrote on X. “Y’all took some words they said and 🏳️ academic’d it to mean Two Spirit.” “She’s absolutely right. I wasn’t aware of this but I found what she’s talking about and it bothers me too,” Gladstone wrote, resharing Begay’s post. “Two Spirit is not a catch all term for 🌈; it’s way more specific […] I’m not Two Spirit: I use nonbinary pronouns.” For those who are unfamiliar, Two-Spirit is not a term that is interchangeable with nonbinary. It is an umbrella term that specifically refers to Indigenous gender variant people who hold specific roles in their communities across Turtle Island (North America) and Abya Yala (South America).

[...]

Just because Gladstone is Indigenous and uses rolling pronouns does not mean they are Two-Spirit. That Gladstone had to correct this to the public is an important reminder to never assume someone’s identity.

[passerkirbius]

There are many times when I have to constantly remind myself that the queer generational gap is absolutely about which battles the previous generation won, thus opening the gates for the next generation's battles, and I do wish that younger queers recognised this too?

Like, I 100% acknowledge that, recently turning 40, that I'm constantly fighting the impulse to trivialise some of the current queer identity battles. The terminology is strange to me, I wasn't raised in the current queer discourse and I don't have the free time to keep up. And this is even with my socio-linguist training, that gives me the understanding that the evolution of queer language is as least partially about each new norm of acceptance being fertile ground for us recognising new ways we may be harming others, and renegotiating how we talk to minimise those harms.

I know that I have internalized a lot of compromises our generation made, compromises that by definition aren't truly just. What is normal and acceptable to me is a straightjacket to those who were not a party to those compromises - fighting these norms is both natural and good.

But just as the new generation will be, I am defined by the battles I have fought. Every word I use to define myself was hard-won, seared into place by my fight against the world around me. I can't simply erase these words from my me and insert your words instead.

I always try to engage with the identity people offer to me on their terms. That's the point of an identity: it's the interface between ourselves and the world around us, how we process who we are and communicate that to those around us.

I'd appreciate it if younger folk offered me the same courtesy, even if the identity I offer uses words you'd never use for yourself, even if you think I clearly belong to whatever identity you've adopted. I've fought for my identity, just as you fight for yours, please don't insist that I throw it all away for your comfort.

[mareastrorum]

personally I will never forgive Roux for putting the words "degenerate freak" into Molly's mouth. He Would Not Fucking Say That (derogatorily).

There was a blessed couple of months that I legitimately forgot she had added that to The Nine Eyes of Lucien, but then the Internet occurred and reminded me, and I seethed about it for a while all over again. Given that this might be a niche area of information for some, time for exposition!

Degenerate is not a very consistently defined term, but the connotation is consistent among all definitions: biological degradation. Every use of the term refers to the idea that some level of regression, failure, or corruption has occurred on a biological level.

Social degeneracy is a social theory that arose alongside social theories of evolution. In short, while some groups of humans evolved, others devolved. Meaning some humans became inferior at the same time that others grew in superiority. Degeneracy is an inherently racist theory because evolution as a biological theory doesn’t include regression or similar occurrences as inherently inferior or bad. It’s just not what evolution is bout. The imposition of a moral tint is what social degeneracy is about.

Art history and music history buffs know a lot about social degeneracy theory because it rose to prominence in the Nazi party and was brought into common discourse through targeted criticism of art and music. Ironically (or is it?), the outcry against degenerate art was initially popularized by a Zionist who included some particularly vitriolic criticism of Oscar Wilde, an infamous poet who was ostracized and imprisoned for homosexuality. However, anti-semites soon decided it was a good way to alienate Jews and any other undesirables. Honestly, there’s nothing inherently anti-Semitic about the degenerate art theory, it’s just particularly useful for fascists and xenophobes to be able to claim that something they dislike is a red flag for racial corruption. Nazis used it for modern art and new hybrid forms of music, especially those popular among Jews and Blacks, and it was done with complete understanding of the word and the social pressure it would exert.

“Degenerate” is a loaded term and should not be used lightly. It has always been tied to an idea of biological degradation, and there is no reason to use it outside of that context. To do so is either intentionally invoking those ideas or demonstrates profound ignorance and laziness.

In the context of Critical Role, it has been used exactly once. Ashly Burke used it in the context of her character catching what many believed to be a “degenerate’s disease.” That phrasing was meant to convey the idea that there was a powerful social stigma associated with the disease and that those who suffered from it also faced discrimination. This was a great use of the term because it succinctly communicated the type of bullshit people endured in that setting for simply getting sick.

In TNEOL, Madeleine Roux decided that Mollymauk Tealeaf, a CR fandom darling among non-cis queers for being the first genderfluid PC, would call Lucien a “degenerate freak.”

Why use that phrase here? What possible reason does Molly, who shares a soul and body with Lucien, have for invoking the idea of biological degradation here? There is no in-character explanation for it except ignorance, and let’s be real, Molly isn’t going to hear someone else call him a “degenerate freak” and then use it against someone else without the joy of learning what it means so that he can make sure it hurts. Especially given that Molly also experienced racist bullshit in the short time he was on screen. I’ll admit, I’m assuming that Molly has a minimum amount of brain cells to be used for the purpose of artful insults, but I feel comfortable in that assumption because it was one of the past times he enjoyed indulging on the stream.

Alternatively, Madeleine Roux just wanted to call Lucien a degenerate freak and Molly was a convenient mouthpiece.

Up until that point in the novel, I was not sure how much input any of the CR cast had on the book. After reading that line, I felt safe in the conclusion that they had absolutely no input whatsoever. I cannot find it in myself to believe that Taliesin or Matt would have agreed that was something Molly would say. It is possible, but I simply cannot believe that it would actually be true.

I’m so grateful that I don’t listen to audio books, because that means I never had to listen to that phrase spoken with Molly’s voice. It doesn’t exist in my head because I can’t even imagine what it would sound like. Thank fuck for the written word.

Roux can go fuck herself.

[sitp-recs]

Sitp Essentials - Fandomversary Edition: Writcraft

June marks the 12th (!!!) fandomversary of this incredibly talented and generous author, whose work has brought me so much joy and healing over the years. What an accomplishment, my friend! I know I’m not only speaking for myself when I say that we are so very grateful for your presence and immense contributions to the HP fandom. I’m a bit wary of taking on long-term projects these days but I really wanted to do something to celebrate this milestone so I’ve decided that, during the month of June (and there was no better month to celebrate in! 🏳️‍🌈) I’ll be posting single recs for 12 of my favourite fics by @writcraft. Some are older recs, written in the blog’s early days, some are brand new, highlighting rare pairs, hidden gems and recent works. I won’t have a rigid schedule because I don’t wanna set myself up for failure so the rec posts will be a surprise even for me 🤣 I hope you guys enjoy them just as much!

Anyone who knows me well is aware that I’m very shy around my fandom heroes and will rarely initiate any kind of conversation with them. I was so anxious about being perceived that I wouldn't even tag them when I created the blog. Writ holds even more power in my imaginary fandom altar because they’ve written one of my all-time favorite fics. I found Little Compton Street aka the “Life on Mars Love Story Told in 3 Acts” at a difficult time of my life when I was almost leaving fandom for good. But getting to read LCS and to fall in love with those magical London spots and captivating characters was a beautiful transformative experience that altered me completely. This fic not only had a profound impact on my ever changing self-awareness as a queer person, it checked my many fic reading boxes, and pulled at my heartstrings in all the right ways. I've learned so much from LCS; it is an ode to queer history, a love letter to all of those who came and fought before us, and to all of those who were killed, erased and forgotten in the process. It is is a story filled with hope and a compassionate reminder urging us to always resist, and never forget.

*at a loss of words*

(…)

As you can see, I always get immersed in my feels when I think about LCS and I know it will always have a special place in my heart. This feeling of profound gratitude and joy for Writ’s formative works is what inspired me to do this humble homage. Am I a bit nervous about not having enough fuel to see this through? Hell yes. But I’m opening myself to the possibility of failure because I know this is for someone who’s unfailingly kind and compassionate. Writ, I admire you deeply as a writer and even more so as a person. Your contributions to the HP fandom through fics, fests and meta over the years have been immense, and I know your RL contributions to the queer community and its memory have been just as impactful. Happy 12th Fandomversary, my friend! For someone who’s been reading your words since 2012, it feels incredibly special to finally get to share this space with you. 🏳️‍🌈💜

[obaewankenope]

Ableist Language and Why It Matters

I've talked about ableism, disability, and ableist language before in the past and thanks to @nencheese for reminding me to write a list for modding purposes, I'm now writing this. 

Lydia Brown has created a Glossary of Ableist Language and even provided alternative terms that can be employed instead of ableist ones. It is not a full compendium of ableist language nor does it provide the history of the terms listed but for an initial starting point for learning to recognise how language can be used and why it matters what words we use, I recommend it.

Here is the link.

I firmly believe that how we use language is one of the most important things to consider, especially online. This is because all words have a history, sometimes short and simple, other times long and complex. Some words we use everyday are innocent, with no murkiness to their origins, whilst others are more shadowed. A hundred years ago using racial slurs was a normal affair (and still is in some places) but nowadays their use is vastly different. The same holds true for queer slurs, misogynistic slurs and, yes, ableist language.

Some words, I imagine, make sense to people when they come across them like "retard" or "spazz", whilst others may be more confusing like "dumb" and "loony". Afterall, how can "loony" be ableist when there is a whole Warners Bros. show literally called The Loony Tunes? But the origins of these words are rooted in ableism and just because they've been used so much that it seems normal to say/use them doesn't mean they are not still ableist.

You might think that some of these words are rather ridiculous to include here but consider the history of "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile" and their use in psychology to describe individuals with IQs lower than 70. Nowadays we use "specific learning difficulty" for this but in the 20th century a "moron" scored between 51 and 70, an "imbecile" between 26 and 51, and an "idiot" 25 or lower. Depending on where you scored, you either were able to do basic things but never able to be very 'useful' except for manual labour, considered to never be able to pass the mental age of six, and/or not even able to provide any use of yourself for even manual labour. Thus the terms were used to determine the worth and usefulness of individuals, so even with their being replaced in the 1970s with degrees by "retardation" (again determining worth, usefulness, and economic value) the history remains that using "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile" to describe yourself or others is playing into the narrative of determining how 'useful' someone is.

We grow up in our societies, our cultures, and with adults informing us of how to act and react. Those adults experienced the same as children and so on, a repeating cycle of generational experiences and knowledge always informed by what came before. Language evolves the same, just like traditions and social mores. So it is no surprise that words used to separate, segregate, exclude and include come into being. Words based in determining worth and value to a community, a culture, a society, are words that become ableist. Because oftentimes a person is valued not for just being a person but rather for what use they are. And thus we have the value of able-bodied and able-minded established and the lack of value of disability and impairment.

Whilst I believe in the reclaiming of words used to dehumanise, other, and oppress, I am cognizant of the fact that ableist language is for more insidious than, for example, queerphobic language because ableist language has a long history of being used to prop up and further other forms of discrimination and exclusion.

Ableist terms are used in regular conversation because it is normalised. Just as racist terms were once normalised. Normativism does not mean something is okay or harmless. 

Many ableist terms tend to centre on intellectual ability or capacity. This is because the value of a person often was equated to how intelligent they were (which was tied into genetic heritage and the concept that poor, ill-bred individuals naturally lacked the intellectual capacity of the 'well-bred' upper classes) and as such utilised to segregate, sterilise and kill those who were not compatible with the norms of society. 

The Nazi's justified the Aktion T4 programme by arguing that disabled individuals were an unworthy waste of resources that were better spent on the productive members of society.

According to the historian Plutarch, it was customary in Sparta to leave disabled babies, more specifically babies with clear physical 'deformities', in exposed locations to die from the elements. Whilst this may have been an exaggeration by Plutarch, other examples exist of similar acts in antiquity.

In Ancient Rome, the Twelve Tables were the foundations of Roman Law. The fourth table centres on the Rights of Familial Heads which included permitting deformed children to be killed and that children born with physical or mental disabilities were to be killed by their father.

Eugenics and forced sterilisation of 'undesirable' individuals has a long history also. From Plato to the modern day, selective breeding, sterilisation and even pressuring prospective mothers to abort if disabilities are found during ultrasounds all play into the conception of an ideal human. 

When we use words that have negative connotations for ourselves and others, we put them and ourselves down. When we call ourselves stupid, we play into a narrative where the worth of a person lies in how intelligent they are (how useful to society and the capitalist economy because lacking any ability or skills meant you were of no use to the capitalist system) we are using terms that mark us as lesser. 

Regardless of whether it is true, that is what using these terms does. Because, unlike queer terms and racial terms, ableist terms have been the base of near enough all forms of discrimination and exclusion. Queer individuals are "mentally ill" and therefore dangers. Non-white individuals are "intellectually inferior" because of their "smaller brains" and therefore are happy to be slaves. Women who wanted the right to vote, to work, to have freedom, were diagnosed with "hysteria". Of course, this doesn't mean that the history of racism and queerphobia and sexism and misogyny are somehow lesser than ableist history, because they're not. That ableism and disability are part of these forms of discrimination merely reinforces the fact that it matters what words you use and when. 

This is why ableism and ableist terms are such an issue and why it matters when and how they are used. The history of oppression lies in these words that are so normal for people to use they don't realise they are advocating a system that separates and segegrates people based on their physical and mental ability to be useful to a capitalist system. 

[vaspider]

Tbh, everyone I see trying to come up with alternative words for Culturally Christian keeps reminding me of when white people got really upset about the term White Privilege. Maybe the term SHOULD make people uncomfortable. Maybe we shouldn't have to take the complaints of others about a term we created to describe our experiences as more important than our needs. As well-meaning as some folks have been, it's been so frustrating to feel like that aspect isn't being seen. We created this term to discuss our oppression and others keep coming to us about their feelings about it, their discomfort. We didn't get rid of the term White Privilege just because it upset a bunch of white people. Why do we have to get rid of the term Culturally Christian because it upsets people it describes?

I'm trying to be compassionate too but it's hard for me to be when it feels like most of the criticisms of the term have been in bad faith and that the criticism is centered around OTHER people's feelings rather than our need to describe our oppression. Idk it doesn't feel fair I guess.

I didn't really expect you of all people to react like this to me having a compassionate conversation with someone who isn't Christian, wasn't raised Christian, and was abused by Christians for not being a Christian, about that person not wanting to be labeled as being inextricably tainted by a religion that abused them for their whole life. That's not something I expected from you. Maybe you missed that part of the conversation, or maybe you read a good faith conversation as if it was in bad faith, idk, but this seems rather unkind for you.

I understand your frustration. I also think it that if I'm actually dedicated to tikkun olam, if someone also being hurt in this situation respectfully talks with me about how I'm hurting them with splash damage from these discussions, I really should hear them out. And if, in the course of that discussion, we talk through how to not only be more accurate with what we're talking about but how to be less hurtful to other victims of Evangelical Christianity, I think that's pretty good, actually.

The person you're talking about isn't Christian and never was, so your analogy doesn't really hold. That person didn't hold any particular privilege and was never part of the dominant group in the first place. Like... that's the whole point. They're also a survivor of religious violence. You assigning privilege to that person which they never received is part of the problem we were addressing in the first place.

Plus, like, isn't the desired outcome that people who are carrying ideas and mindsets which come from Christian hegemony work on shedding those ideas and mindsets? Labeling people - especially people who aren't Christian and doubly especially those who never were - rather than ideas means those people are labeled regardless of what ideas they hold. That seems counterproductive to me, and, again, hurtful to fellow victims to label them with an identity they don't hold. It's like someone calling a bi person a Spicy Straight because they don't look queer enough or whatever - they're assigning an identity that someone else doesn't have because it makes it easier for them to speak their pain, and ignoring the damage that does.

The best part of the conversation is that by the end of it, someone pointed out that there's already an academic term -- Christian hegemony -- which has been in use for a really long time, well before "cultural Xianity" came into use. It looks like it goes back at least 50 years. So because I was patient and compassionate with someone else who was victimized like I was victimized, I got to learn something which will make it easier to communicate in the future, since that term is widely established and it's easy to point to PDFs that define it, or articles with Jewish educators explaining it.*

Sounds like a win to me - I get to avoid accidentally hurting others who were hurt like I was hurt, I learned something, and now I have a better, clearer term and can speak more clearly.

I'm sorry it frustrates you. I don't think your analogy works, though, and I'm happy with using "Christian hegemony" to describe ideas and not labeling people. I certainly wouldn't like it if someone insisted on calling me Christian, because I'm not, so forcing that label on others who also are not Christian seems hypocritical and unkind. Someone can hold ideas they learned from Christian hegemony without being Christian, and saying it that way doesn't hurt me, so it's no great burden to me to use a more established, more accurate, less hurtful means of addressing my own hurt.

* I don't agree 100% with everything in these links, please don't send me asks or reblog this with nitpicks of the links, I'm not interested bc that's not the point of including them.

[vincent-marie]

Hot Take: "Equal Fights" Predicted Online Faketivism

In some ways "Equal Fights" hasn't aged well in its effort to teach about feminism, that the execution wasn't handled as well as it could have been & that it wound up painting the feminists as straw men stereotypes. Rumor has it that even Lauren Faust, who did storyboards on the episode, isn't a fan of it in hindsight.

However this episode feels a lot more relevant to me now in our current age of online purity culture.

We live in an age of social media where young people, who had little to no power before, now have a tool at their fingertips to signal boost for those who need help the most. Teenagers can be everyday heroes in their own right. Frankly I respect you kids for being motivated in your sense of kindness & nobility.

However the problem is that unfortunately what good that can actually be done gets drowned out by a lot of harassment & bullying in the name of social justice. Especially if these young people's sources are very dubious & self-serving.

That's basically what Femme Fatale is as a character. She's a grifter who uses a progressive movement, feminism in this case, as her means for her own gain. Namely, robbing banks.

It's understandable that every super villain has a gimmick. Two-Face has the Number 2 & duality, FF could've just been a devious collector of currency with women imprinted on them. (I myself wish they would discontinue the bulky, useless penny & bring back the Sacagawea dollar.) But beyond that, she uses it as an excuse to get out of getting arrested, to claim that what she's doing is good for society at large, & above all to manipulate & influence the young & impressionable Powerpuff Girls.

The girls, being literal children, take her words to heart & implement them in ways that do more harm than good. From bullying boys in the schoolyard to letting Femme Fatale get away with her crimes.

Reminds me an awful lot of kids & young people on Tumblr & Twitter who get riled up by the words of self-proclaimed progressives who turn out to be TERFs, grifters, or members of the Leopards Eating My Face Party. Namely, the people who use progressivism & online activism to their own end.

And it's not just the Youtubers with the large subscriber base. It's also the individuals who reblog, retweet & bully even on a small scale to make themselves look good or feel like they're making a difference. Not to mention the burner & bot accounts being used to fan the flames of discord within progressive circles.

But what I find the most telling is that FF claims to be a feminist, she collects Susan B. Anthony coins, but she doesn't even know who Susan B. even was & why she was so important to American history.

Reminds me an awful lot of certain gay or trans Youtubers who would try to have you believe that "queer" is a slur, when in reality we not only reclaimed it as an umbrella term to include bisexual, trans, intersex, asexual, etc. people, but is an important part of our very history.

The slogan chanted demanding our basic human rights:

"We're here, we're queer

Get used to it."

It makes me sick that there are multiple generations of people who don't understand our own history. That there are people within our community who would promote & capitalize on that ignorance.

That's who Femme Fatale is. Willingly ignorant herself, selfish, manipulative, & would promote such lack of values to the next generation for her own gain.

And that's why she deserves to serve time in prison, while online faketivist grifters deserve to lose followers, go broke, & disappear into obscurity so they can't do any more damage.

[ladydragonkiller]

Alright I started this train of thought in the notes in a different post and it hasn’t left me alone, so here I am.

My brain is drawing parallels between the symbolism Night Vale holds for queerness and how the different methods of scientific understanding that have been attempted interact with that. 

Dr. Lubelle wants to put everything into a neat, tidy little box that fits with her current view of the world. She defines and explains, and in doing so misses what makes Night Vale and the entities within it special. The things she says about Sarah Sultan and the Glow Cloud are, in her eyes and perhaps even objectively, true, but in laying it out so clearly she kills them. 

I’m reminded by this of arguments within and around queer communities about labels. Any word for gender or sexuality means a thousand different things to a thousand different people. Even for being straight or cis, and especially for any number of identities or in-betweens out there. While some people may feel comforted by a definition for these terms, no one explanation is going to fit everyone who uses that label. Trying to separate these out is pointless, messy, and only liable to hurt the people involved.

And that’s okay! That’s great! I love that we can find a home in the gaps left unfilled, because it’s very rare that life is 100% black and white. Not everything can be fully explained, and learning to appreciate the beauty of that is so much more productive than trying anyways.

Just like Carlos’s perspective on Night Vale. When he first came to the town, he was definitely interested in trying to understand it. This desire is now, above all else, tempered with a huge amount of love for the town. He’s investigating in an effort to understand better, yes, but not at the detriment of the town or its’ citizens.

Above all else, he isn’t trying to force Night Vale to be something it isn’t, or trying to take away what it is. He’s letting it be, appreciating it in all it’s beauty, and learning not for knowledge and pride’s sake, but with enthusiasm and respect. He accepts he isn’t going to know more about the inhabitants than they do themselves.

There might be a whole separate idea in here about the town waiting so long to accept Carlos as a citizen (and the as of yet unknown of how he’s reacted to that), but my brain needs to percolate a bit before I can say anything intelligent about that.

[11-eyed-rook]

Seriously, I feel like this needs to be understood and said more often but...

YOUNG QUEERS SHOULD LEARN MORE ABOUT (AND UNDERSTAND) QUEER HISTORY, BUT OLDER QUEERS ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

But there's more to it.

And here's where I'm coming from, personally (it'll be a bit long, my apologies, but it should give you a perspctive on what I mean):

I'm 27, pansexual, genderfluid (AFAB; male-leaning overall, experiencing certain forms of dysphoria much of my life), I'm from a country that's somewhat conservative-leaning, used to be a part of the USSR and hasn't had the friendliest attitude towards the LGBTQ+ community or pride events even in recent years. Transphobia and homophobia continue to be major issues here, and due to more older more conservative-minded people using social media, a lot of hateful thinking is spread around, misinformation and literal lies are spread around, and opinions are becoming more extreme in some circles.

Being openly queer is simply not something you can be here safely (even now), even if you happen to know people that accept you.

I don’t think I’ve ever even met/personally known any openly queer people in my country in my entire life, and the only ones I know of at all are either celebrities, or they’re involved in some political circles, and even so, I don’t see much talk about queerness – much of the time the fact is mentioned as a side-note “fun fact/reminder” rather than something important; very few of them ever seem to talk about their own experience of queerness, and even so – in general terms, briefly. That's if they mention it at all, of course...

To put into perspective how deeply closeted I’ve had to be - my own father literally threatened violence (rather, he threatened to end my life) for trying to come out as trans some years ago (and believe me, he’d go through with it, I don’t doubt it). Just for TRYING to come out. I was already an adult by that point. He's always been very homophobic and transphobic, and that has only gotten worse with time.

I started questioning my gender very early in my childhood, without even knowing that being trans is a something that can happen, without knowing that not everybody questions their gender, without knowing why I’ve felt the way I have. I didn't know anything about the LGBTQ+ community until about the mid-2000s, even so, surface-level news, and anything else - mostly from the perspective of extremely homophobic/transphobic conservatives, some trying to ban pride events and making sure that everybody is pulled into the idea of "the gays = bad". I started trying to understand what it meant to be queer/gay once I had internet access and the occasional moments of privacy - I was afraid of asking questions, because I was made to believe that it's "bad" to be this way. Some time later, I’d realize that I have no gender preference when it comes to attraction. I understood myself to be bisexual, at around age 12-13; it was one of the only things I had a word for. I still wasn’t familiar with the trans community. I had no resources I could fully trust. I still was just learning to speak English properly. I had no queer friends. But what I understood is that I can’t express what I DO know about myself, because I’d be in danger.

I had to figure things out on my own. Only when I was about 15-16 years old did I find friends who are part of the LGBTQ+ community, all of them outside of my country. I finally started feeling less alone in my personal experiences. I found out that what I was feeling about my gender, is me being trans. I started to learn terminology I was previously completely unfamiliar with. Yet...

I’m 27. Pansexual. Genderfluid. Most of my friends are part of the community in some way. And somehow, I still know very little about queer history as such. I still don’t know what sources I can trust when trying to learn about queer history. Whatever little I do know, is stuff that “almost everybody” knows to some extent or another. I’ve felt a sense of guilt, because I’m queer, yet, I know practically nothing of the community's history and struggles. Older queers have made me feel inadequate about it, not directly, but in those general callout posts about “NEEDING TO LEARN THE HISTORY”.

Younger queers than myself, know even less than I do.

In the age when LGBTQ+ media is censored in some places, banned in others, completely unavailable to many, even actually illegal in some places, how can you expect every queer person out there to know all there is to know, if you don’t offer a helping hand here or there?

This is a sort of “callout” to older queers than myself; those that know the history or lived it, those that can provide information. If you have resources that you can share with those like myself, please provide them rather than shaming us for “not knowing more”. Some of us simply do not have access to the resources you’ve had access to, to the knowledge you have, maybe even the experiences you’ve lived through/been a part of yourself.

You see how the internet is, and you should know how hard it is to just trust random shit online, especially nowadays. Censorship isn’t helping, either. And this is a problem in developed first-world countries, needless to speak of anywhere else.

Just because we’re born queer, doesn’t mean we’re born knowing our history. What’s obvious to you isn’t always obvious to everybody else.

Be understanding and offer a helping hand when you can (I try to when I'm able to). Some learn sooner. Some learn later. But if you can help somebody learn at all, maybe try to help. Shame isn't an educational tool. Offering otherwise unavailable resources in this day and age, is more valuable than you might realize, even for stuff that might seem like "common knowledge".

I want to understand. Many others do too.

You see the world as it is. Our history is being erased left and right. Save and share whatever resources you can.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Aaron Kimberly

Published: Dec 18, 2021

The Queer lobby keeps adding letters to their banner to signal their holier-than-thou “inclusivity” and “diversity”. One of the more recent inclusions has been the 2S, which stands for Two-Spirit”, but what does this mean and where did it originate?

The english term “Two-Spirit” was coined in 1990 during the third annual intertribal Native American/First Nations gay and lesbian conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The congregants wanted to distance themselves from European concepts of “gay” and the word “berdache”, a label given to the gender non-conforming natives by white settlers. “Two-Spirit” is a translation of the Ojibwe niizh manitoag.

I grew up in Manitoba. One Scottish branch of my family travelled here on Lord Selkirk’s ship to build and work for the Hudson’s Bay Settlement, which is now Winnipeg. Despite living in close proximity to many Cree, Ojibwe and Dakota communities, I know embarrassingly little about their cultures. I have (also embarrassingly) heard countless Queer activists over the past 20 years cite Two-Spirit as a local example of “transgender” history, but I’ve rarely heard this mentioned by First Nations people themselves. So, I’m curious: what were the historical and cultural meanings of the term? Ask, and the Universe/Creator/God provides.

I was introduced to a Dakota woman who resides in Winnipeg, not far from where I was born. She has several friends who attended the 1990 conference. I’ll call her “Teara” to protect her privacy. (She chose the pseudonym "cause I'm gonna tear this crap down...for my community's well being"). Teara reminded me a lot of my own grandmother, a powerhouse of a woman with a big heart, a loud voice and a sharp mind that can detect bullshit up wind. She’ll call it like it is.

Here's what she told me:

Dakota culture is organized around the Creator. What is given by the Creator is to be respected and appreciated. Teara comes from a long line of “seers” – a visionary gift. The Dakota people have long believed that everyone is born with two spirits – one masculine and one feminine. She gave examples of times when she draws from her male spirit when she needs to be strong, and from her female spirit when she needs to be gentle. Sometimes, one of those spirits is innately stronger in a person and so, some women tend to be more masculine, and some men tend to be more feminine. Since all natural traits are seen as the gifts from the Creator, they are honoured. Women with strong masculine spirits were permitted to go hunting with the men. Likewise, men with strong feminine spirits were permitted to participate in some activities with the women.

She explained that this understanding is very different from the contemporary “transgender” movement. Two-Spirit people were not seen as a third sex, nor the opposite sex. They understood that female and male are biological/reproductive categories. To “change sex” would be at act of rebellion against the Creator who gave us the gift of our bodies.

Queer politics have made their way into Teara’s own Manitoba community. She sees this as a threat to her culture, an attack on native women, and an effort to divide and conquer. She has raised her concerns in her community and met with hostility. She’s been asked to leave council meetings and has been physically attacked and intimidated.

I saw no hate or deceit in Teara. She was generous and gracious with me, freely offering her wisdom to a stranger. She has insights into the disruptive and divisive nature of critical gender theory which echo academics like James Lindsay.

Teara is a Knowledge Keeper.

For more information:

Dr. Myra Laramee, B.Ed., M.Ed., Ph. D (Education) of Fisher River First Nation discusses what it means to be Two-Spirit, as well as the term’s history and origin.

If everyone is two-spirit, then nobody is "Two-Spirit."