#so many men are co-opting the lesbian community

[artinvain]

“culturally queer” , “growing up gay” stfu 😭😭🤫

[one-divides-into-two]

"If we treat the Stonewall Uprising as initiating the modern gay mass movement in 1969, the left-adventurist line was initially dominant, and fell by the wayside in the late 70s. Those who led the first wave of the LGBT movement of the 60s understood themselves (however incompletely) as participating in a revolutionary movement and process: In broad strokes, the early “left” line groups of gay liberation located the center of gay oppression in the family form itself and were explicitly in solidarity with the women’s movement as in many ways the same as their own (ideologically if not always practically). The British Gay Liberation Front’s Manifesto reads

The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family...At some point nearly all gay people have found it difficult to cope with having the restricting images of man or woman pushed on them by their parents...we are expected to prove ourselves socially to our parents as members of the right sex (to bring home a boy/girl friend) and to start being a 'real' (oppressive) young man or a 'real' (oppressed) young woman

The Boston Gay Men’s Liberation group argued in their manifesto for the collectivization of childcare and housework, saying

Rearing children should be the common responsibility of the whole community. Any legal rights parents have over ‘their’ children should be dissolved and each child should be free to choose its own destiny. Free twenty-four hour child care centers should be established where faggots and lesbians can share the responsibility of child rearing

Others explicitly aligned themselves with the national liberation and anti-imperialist struggles of the time –Third World Gay Revolution went so far as to explicitly call for armed struggle towards establishing socialism. The gay struggle, to these organizations, was necessarily part of the struggle for the end of capitalism and the liberation of all oppressed and exploited peoples.

Nevertheless, these groups primarily took the left-adventurist line, and the failure of these organizations to place politics in command and take up Marxism fully (despite its influence within the movement), and the failure of the leading Marxist organizations of the time to cast aside their chauvinism, place politics in command, and embrace the LGBT movement (most notably RU/RCP, which maintained that homosexuality was “perpetuated and fostered by the decay of capitalism” and to be eliminated under socialism until 2001 and engaged in conversion therapy-style practices on their gay cadre), allowed the bourgeoisie to co-opt the movement and suppress its revolutionary strains. By the end of the 1970s the main left-adventurist groups that emerged from the movement's popular initiation via the Stonewall Uprising (GLF, STAR, TWGR, etc) had collapsed, and were replaced by the newly dominant right-opportunist trend, represented in groups like Lambda Legal (founded 1971), GLAD (1978), and the Human Rights Campaign (1980). Occasional left-adventurist ruptures emerged over the succeeding years, with ACT UP's break (rooted in part in gay and lesbian anti-imperialist solidarity work in the preceding years) from Gay Men's Health Crisis representing the most significant of these, but over the next three decades the bourgeois "marriage equality" became the central demand of the movement, with the implication that once these various reforms proposed by the right-opportunist trend were enacted, the gay movement would cease to be necessary.

In the first two decades of the 21st century these reforms were realized, and the idealist fantasies of the leading bourgeois gay organizations were not. These reforms were granted because they reaffirmed the bourgeois family form, successfully assimilating the leading upper strata of LGBT people as a method of defusing the movement as a whole. While in some ways the broad social acceptability of homosexuality, transness and gender nonconformity have increased, the reaction to these reforms has produced a vicious effort to oppress the lower strata, typically trans people.

Indeed, all empirical evidence points to the continuing existence of anti-gay and anti-trans oppression. In our younger years, parents, teachers, and other authority figures will attempt to suppress any expression of homosexuality, transness, or gender non-conformity. The passive and active social enforcement of your sex/gender role is a universal experience, but is felt particularly acutely by those most directly in contradiction with those roles. When this fails, authority figures sometimes resort to violence and sexual abuse – gay and trans children suffer higher rates of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse across the board as compared to their cis and straight peers. LGBT people as a whole make 10% less than the average worker. This is felt more acutely among trans people, particularly trans women (in line with their cis counterparts), who make just 60% of the average. What bourgeois sociological evidence does exist points to significant discrimination in housing, jobs, medical care, etc. Accessing medical care is a struggle of its own for trans people – getting the treatment needed for basic day-to-day existence is often humiliating and expensive.

For younger LGBT people, particularly trans people, this political sequence has produced significant "whiplash." We grew up in a period of a real increase in broad social "acceptance," and being told that these reforms would guarantee an end to our oppression. But the utter abdication of leadership by the rightists following the reforms (after all, "we won") and the reactionary backlash has left the movement with a vacuum of political and organizational leadership at a crucial conjuncture. In the absence of this leadership, small groups have begun to emerge, largely taking up the left-adventurist anarchist line, sometimes explicitly. In some ways, this is a positive situation for communists. The broad masses of LGBT people are crying out for leadership in their struggle against the reactionary offensive, and the failure of the bourgeois rightist line to provide its promised victory has revealed to many gay and trans people, particularly those of the lower strata, the bankruptcy of reformism.

The current assault on our self-determination by the reactionary wing of first-world politics presents us with an opportunity to smash that trend, to effect a final rupture. Gay and trans people, particularly trans people, are increasingly forced into direct confrontation with the bourgeois state (through its repressive laws) and its extra-legal shock troops (with trans events becoming one of the primary targets for street fascist attacks). Not since the AIDS crisis have we seen such direct confrontation – and with it, openness to revolutionary communist political projects.

The task before communists in the gay movement is therefore to rectify the line of the movement through theoretical and practical struggle, to offer leadership to the gay and trans masses, and transform this movement into a detachment of the world proletarian struggle for communism."

Half the Sky: Preliminary Materials for a Proletarian Feminist Politics

[nonconformityhub]

https://www.tumblr.com/nonconformityhub/752900218271547392/a-few-people-had-issues-with-my-friends-use-of

Hi! I like that your blog is dedicated to exploring new language about various identities, but as a lesbian, please know that "bi lesbian" (or "mspec lesbian") is a harmful, lesbophobic and biphobic term.

"Bi/mspec lesbian" erases both identities (implying that bisexuals are under the "lesbian umbrella" and that lesbians are attracted to the opposite gender/men, both which are factually untrue). "Lesbian" is not an umbrella term for all sapphics.

Also, "bi/mspec lesbian" confuses the greater public (including cishet men) who are mislead to think lesbians are into them, therefore contributing to ("corrective") r4pe culture. Lesbians are not attracted to men and do not date men, period.

No need to co-opt "lesbian" by attaching "bi" to it, when terms like "bisexual", "sapphic" and "wlw" exist (not to mention that "lesbian" already encompasses women and woman-aligned nonbinary people).

Erasure and misleading language is the last thing we need in our community. Could you please amend/correct your post?

Thank you!

Hello! I appreciate your views but plenty of lesbians and bisexuals support this term too (see all the reblogs and likes on that post)

You may personally see no need to reclaim a historic interpretation of lesbian or no need for people who are fluid between bi and lesbian, bisexual homoromantic/homosexual biromantic, and so on to use the term bi lesbian - but they clearly see a need to, that's why it exists

The term has come back into use from the 1970s/80s/90s because people needed it to, language doesn't just come back when nobody needs it. People have a use for the word, many of said uses are described in the post and in those 70s/80s/90s accounts (poetry, interviews, all sorts can be found out there)

You'll also notice that the identity is yet to confuse the general public into thinking all lesbians like men or even enter public awareness, and if it does, identifiers provide resources and definitions for their identity like the infographic my friend made to clear these things up

I will not be 'correcting' the post because not only did I not make that infographic, but the information being presented is correct. It correctly tells you why people identify as bi lesbians and it correctly tells you the history of the term, you can think it's a pointless or damaging term but the information there is correct

By far the biggest reason people find use in it is because they are bisexual homoromantic or homosexual biromantic, and they're clarifying that the 'homo' part is lesbian - hence bi lesbian, bisexual lesbian, biromantic lesbian

This is my favourite carrd for talking about the historical and modern reasons for combining the two

Labels are personal and exist for an individual to understand themselves and express their experience of the world in a way that works for them, and we can't just decide what way works for them

[septembersghost]

as a queer fan, what drives me most insane is how they weaponize homophobia as an accusation to anyone acknowledging reality, including queer people!, but then they're soooo homophobic? They'll say, "she let a song be used in gay media, a straight artist would NEVER," ignoring that straight artists do and saying that makes it sound like it'd be a stain on a straight artist to let their music be used. Then they'll say, "she's friends with a bunch of queer ppl, no straight woman would hang out with that many lesbians" as if everything about that statement isn't homophobic. 💀 They call her fruity, a crazy dyke, for wearing jean shorts. I don't personally believe it's okay to use those words at someone you don't know. They say she's made her stories up as cover and ignore the harm and confusion she felt in her age gap relationships and how what happened with those men affected her, they literally said she lied for attention with WCS. They sent DEATH THREATS and hate to the mother of a little boy who died of cancer! wtf is wrong with them!!! "So It Goes" makes me think of me and my gf, not because Taylor wrote it that way but because I can find our feelings in it! if I said that to them, they'd loop my life into their conspiracy theories. How fucking dare they? She's not a fictional character in a game but neither am I! They use real queer experiences to make shit up while being homophobic AND misogynistically shaming her. I can't find a niche with queer fans because it's overrun with their bullshit. the fuck of it all is it doesn't matter to me that she enjoys men, it wouldn't change her music for me if she was queer so why does it matter that she's straight? I love her music, that's it.

(the "she's lying for attention" with WCS was what made me fully snap and prepared to fight in public last october. that was disgusting and unforgivable. then the hate sent to maya was hands down one of the cruelest things i've ever seen happen in fandom. those people need serious help. zero empathy whatsoever).

anon, i am so sorry you've experienced this, i love our community very much, but as with anything, it has some dark and disconcerting corners and that's the case here. it's completely nonsensical that they do these things that utilize outright harmful rhetoric and an utter lack of self-awareness because they're too far into this to see clearly.

you deserve to share your emotions and enjoy her freely without worrying about judgement and certainly without feeling like your own life is co-opted by others. your love of her music is ultimately all that matters and is not determined by anything they do, that's yours, but i wish you could find the niche you're looking for and enjoy your time in the fandom more wholly. for what it's worth, i know she would value and hear you, and i do too and am sending you love!!! 💜

[rouge-the-bat]

man this person really went on to say a lot of shit ive already had people yell at me unprompted a million times before, while ive been using bi lesbian for years and havent changed my mind. what makes them think theyll suddenly get to change it lol

also u seem adamant about nonmen loving nonmen doesnt equate nonbinary lesbians to women while completely ignoring the fact that nonbinary people CAN be men. nonbinary isnt just always a completely neutral third gender. and multigender/genderfluid people exist, and they deserve to be able to identify their orientation in a way that describes them best even if it doesnt perfectly fit monogendered views on this shit. btw hi, im a woman, many forms of nonbinary, AND man. please tell me, oh great one who can deem all the rules of identities, what the fucking hell can i call my attraction? 🙄

"lesbians are the only population that experiences a unique type of oppression that comes from not being a man and also not being attracted to men" so aroace nonmen just dont exist to you huh

the lesbian label isnt being "co-opted" for shit when mspec people have always belonged under the label lol. learn your queer history dipshit. and "defeats the purpose" lol the purpose of the lesbian label is to say that you love women, even if its inclusive of different stuff it doesnt mean theyre inherent to the identity or the label is ABOUT it! if the "purpose" youre referring to is a more political statement about not having anything to do with men (rather than it being about your love of women) in your life then jsyk youre literally spouting radfem 101 of second wave feminism which is where lesbian separatism originated from! it makes YOU the one revolving the label around men!

also blaming lesbophobia on ur fellow queers instead of the cishet lesbophobes doing the assumptions and harm is really fucked up! quite the queer solidarity you got there prick!

tldr i dont give a shit what you have to say and youre a fucking dumbass whos not so subtley queerphobic to a lot of the "weirder" identities in the community and youre drinking radfem juice. go fuck yourself. if you cant handle sharing stuff that you dont own might i suggest you return to kindergarten to relearn that skill with all the other children?

[flightlessnightingale]

On Lesbianism

I’ll state it at the top here, because many have not understood my stance. The purpose of this essay is not to say that Lesbian cannot mean “Female homosexual.” Rather, my objective is to show that Lesbian means more than that single definition suggests. Female Homosexuals are lesbians, unless they personally do not want to use that label. Now, on with the show: Lesbianism is not about gatekeeping, and I don’t want to have to keep convincing people that the movement popularized by someone who wrote a book full of lies and hate speech then immediately worked with Ronald Reagan is a bad movement. In the early ’70s, groups of what would now be called “gender critical” feminists threatened violence against many trans women who dared exist in women’s and lesbian spaces. For example, trans woman Beth Elliott, who was at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference to perform with her lesbian band, was ridiculed onstage and had her existence protested. In 1979, radical feminist Janice Raymond, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, wrote the defining work of the TERF movement, “Transsexual Empire: The Making of the Shemale,” in which she argued that “transsexualism” should be “morally mandating it out of existence”—mainly by restricting access to transition care (a political position shared by the Trump administration). Soon after she wrote another paper, published for the government-funded, National Center for Healthcare Technology — and the Reagan administration cut off Medicare and private health insurance coverage for transition-related care.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism is a fundamentally unsustainable ideology. Lesbianism is a fundamentally sustainable existence.

There used to be a lesbian bar or queer bar or gay bar in practically every small town — sometimes one of each. After surviving constant police raids, these queer spaces began closing even Before the AIDS epidemic. Because TERFs would take them over, kick out transfems and their friends. Suddenly, there weren’t enough local patrons to keep the bars open, because the majority had been kicked out. With America’s lack of public transportation, not enough people were coming from out of town either.

TERFs, even beyond that, were a fundamental part of the state apparatus that let AIDS kill millions.

For those who don’t know, Lesbian, from the time of Sappho of Lesbos to the about 1970′s, referred to someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. It was not only a sexuality, but almost akin to a gender spectrum.

That changed in the 1970′s when TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, working with Ronald fucking Reagan to ban insurance for trans healthcare.

TERFs took over the narrative, the bars, the movement, and changed Lesbian from the most revolutionary and integral queer communal identity of 2 fucking THOUSAND years, from “Someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy” to “A woman with a vagina who’s sexually attracted to other women with vaginas”

How does this fit into the bi lesbian debate? As I said, Lesbian is more of a Gender Spectrum than anything else, it was used much in the same way that we use queer or genderqueer today.

And it’s intersectional too.

See, if you were to try to ascribe a rigid, biological, or localized model of an identity across multiple cultures, it will fail. It will exclude people who should not be excluded. ESPECIALLY Intersex people. That’s why “Two Spirit” isn’t something rigid- it is an umbrella term for the identities within over a dozen different cultures. In the next two sections, I have excerpts on Two-Spirit and Butch identity, to give a better idea of the linguistics of queer culture: This section on Two-Spirit comes from wikipedia, as it has the most links to further sources, I have linked all sources directly, though you can also access them from the Wikipedia page’s bibliography: Two-Spirit is a pan-Indian, umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people who fulfill a traditional ceremonial and social role that does not correlate to the western binary. [1] [2] [3] Created at the 1990 Indigenous lesbian and gay international gathering in Winnipeg, it was "specifically chosen to distinguish and distance Native American/First Nations people from non-Native peoples." [4] Criticism of Two-Spirit arises from 2 major points, 1. That it can exasperate the erasure of the traditional terms and identities of specific cultures.           a. Notice how this parallels criticisms of Gay being used as the umbrella           term for queer culture in general. 2. That it implies adherence to the Western binary; that Natives believe these individuals are "both male and female" [4]          a. Again, you’ll notice that this parallels my criticisms of the TERF definition of Lesbian, that tying LGBT+ identities to a rigid western gender binary does a disservice to LGBT+ people,—especially across cultures. “Two Spirit" wasn’t intended to be interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"; [2] nor was it meant to replace traditional terms in Indigenous languages.  Rather, it was created to serve as a pan-Indian unifier. [1] [2] [4] —The term and identity of two-spirit "does not make sense" unless it is contextualized within a Native American or First Nations framework and traditional cultural understanding. [3] [10] [11] The ceremonial roles intended to be under the modern umbrella of two-spirit can vary widely, even among the Indigenous people who accept the English-language term. No one Native American/First Nations' culture's gender or sexuality categories apply to all, or even a majority of, these cultures. [4] [8] Butch: At the turn of the 20th century, the word “butch” meant “tough kid” or referred to a men’s haircut. It surfaced as a term used among women who identified as lesbians in the 1940s, but historians and scholars have struggled to identify exactly how or when it entered the queer lexicon. However it happened, "Butch” has come to mean a “lesbian of masculine appearance or behavior.” (I have heard that, though the words originate from French, Femme & Butch came into Lesbian culture from Latina lesbian culture, and if I find a good source for that I will share. If I had to guess, there may be some wonderful history to find of it in New Orleans—or somewhere similar.) Before “butch” became a term used by lesbians, there were other terms in the 1920s that described masculinity among queer women. According to the historian Lillian Faderman,“bull dagger” and “bull dyke” came out of the Black lesbian subculture of Harlem, where there were “mama” and “papa” relationships that looked like butch-femme partnerships. Performer Gladys Bentley epitomized this style with her men’s hats, ties and jackets. Women in same-sex relationships at this time didn’t yet use the word “lesbian” to describe themselves. Prison slang introduced the terms “daddy,” “husband,” and “top sargeant” into the working class lesbian subculture of the 1930s.  This lesbian history happened alongside Trans history, and often intersected, just as the Harlem renaissance had music at the forefront of black and lesbian (and trans!) culture, so too can trans musicians, actresses, and more be found all across history, and all across the US. Some of the earliest known trans musicians are Billy Tipton and Willmer “Little Ax” Broadnax—Both transmasculine musicians who hold an important place in not just queer history, but music history.

Lesbian isn’t rigid & biological, it’s social and personal, built up of community and self-determination.

And it has been for millennia.

So when people say that nonbinary lesbians aren’t lesbian, or asexual lesboromantics aren’t lesbian, or bisexual lesbians aren’t lesbian, it’s not if those things are technically true within the framework — It’s that those statements are working off a fundamentally claustrophobic, regressive, reductionist, Incorrect definition You’ll notice that whilst I have been able to give citations for TERFs, for Butch, and especially for Two-Spirit, there is little to say for Lesbianism. The chief reason for this is that lesbian history has been quite effectively erased-but it is not forgotten, and the anthropological work to recover what was lost is still ongoing. One of the primary issues is that so many who know or remember the history have so much trauma connected to "Lesbian” that they feel unable to reclaim it. Despite this trauma, just like the anthropological work, reclamation is ongoing.

Since Sappho, lesbian was someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. For centuries, esbian wasn’t just a sexuality, it was intersectional community, kin to a gender spectrum, like today’s “queer”. When TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, they redefined Lesbian to “woman w/ a vag attracted to other women w/ vags”. So when you say “bi lesbians aren’t lesbian” it’s not whether that’s true within the framework, it’s that you’re working off a claustrophobic, regressive, and reductionist definition.

I want Feminism, Queerness, Lesbianism, to be fucking sustainable.

I wanna see happy trans and lesbian and queer kids in a green and blue fucking world some day.

I want them to be able to grow old in a world we made good.

[aspec-sapphic-culture-is]

Hiii :) I just saw your post on lesbians and how the label is used by certain ppl

I just wanted to ask you what you mean by “lesbians can be attracted to men”?

As far as I know, lesbian means a homosexual woman(thereby exclusively loves other women)

The “lesbians can be attracted to men” made me reel a little because usually that’s classic homophobic rhetoric that lesbians just “haven’t found the right man yet” or should “try out d*** and see”

Bisexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, and is a beautiful label with a rich history that includes a lot of the men inclusive types of attraction that you talked about, so why expand the definition of lesbian?

Not looking to start a fight or anything, just curious as to how you believe in a much more different definition of the term

hey there! lesbian doesn't mean homosexual woman, it's always just been used to describe wlw and nlw. many lesbians aren't attracted to men, but the term lesbian has never inherently excluded women and non-binary people attracted to men. many women who dated both women and men called themselves lesbians because they were wlw as well as bi, and TERFs co-opted it as being for "female homosexuals" but it has always been used interchangeably with sapphic, which isn't exclusive. the only reason people view it differently is because of the effects of political lesbianism on the queer community. i'm not going to get into any of that on this post but it's something you should look into because it really really set back queer progress and is still a prominent ideology among TERFs and younger, uneducated queer people.

[queerasaurus-rexx]

'I guarantee that this idea that “terfs hate men uwu” is precisely why so many people assume that all lesbians are terfs and that terfs are all/mostly lesbians.'

they use us as meat shields.

whenever you come for their transphobic bullshit, it is almost guaranteed they will claim they're trying to 'protect' lesbians.

they co-opted the language we use to protect ourselves from lesbophobic cis men and use it against trans women, and i wouldn't be surprised if they did this to drive a wedge between us and our trans sisters (because multiple studies have shown that of all the groups in the queer community, lesbians are the most accepting of trans people.)

this ain't even touching on the racism, as terfs have a particular viciousness for black trans women.

not to mention, it is disproportionately black women who are the targets of their 'transvestigations' online.

because radical feminism is rooted in white supremacy and a white european standard of femininity.

bottom line; for all their claims of man hating, it seems to me that terfs tend to hate women who don't follow their beliefs more.

trans exclusionary radical feminist? more like trans exclusionary radical misogynist.

this might make me sound ignorant but is the radfem part of term not about hating men? they hate trans people, they hate men and they view both as predatory, obviously men are not their primary targets but I feel like it would be incorrect to say that they don't hate men, especially since many of them believe in gender separatism (which is bs for numerous reasons). it's wrong to bring up men every time someone talks about the transmisogyny terfs spew bc that would be derailing the conversation but can men (trans/cis/whatever) not express how they've been hurt by terfs in their own posts or conversations? apologies if ive completely misinterpreted what you were saying I just want to understand the topic better

I’m not disputing that terfs hate men. However, I think it’s an error to highlight their hatred of men as ideologically significant. Sure they talk about hating men, but their political alliances reveal that dismantling patriarchy, or a desire to oppress men, is not a concern for them, given that they support the criminalisation of sex work, the state enforcement of sex as biologically determined, and are allied with the same right wing groups (such as the Heritage Foundation in the US) that want to criminalise abortion and reinstate “traditional” white western gender norms. If you view terf political goals through the lens of hating men, then their political efforts have overwhelmingly been a massive failure. Which I don’t think is very useful analysis!

A hatred of men is also not politically useful in general, because there is no money to be made or political battles to be won hating men. Hatred of men is not a systemic issue because men are not oppressed as a social group on the basis of their manhood. There is no political or financial infrastructure built on the foundation of hating men, nor is there infrastructure dedicated to maintaining a systemic hatred of men. Hating trans people, however, is extremely financially and politically lucrative, particularly hatred of trans women/transfems, because of how transphobia and misogyny intersect with and reinforce one another. There are ample political, financial, medical, and social institutions that operate on the maintenance of patriarchy, many of which terfs share a political platform with. So terf hatred of men is clearly not that big a deal given how willing they are to ally with right wing groups and fascists, who are the last people on earth to tolerate the oppression of men as a political goal.

This is why people (myself included) take umbrage with the continued insistence that terfs hate men as a central foundation of their beliefs. It’s not incorrect to say that they hate men, but hating men is not the problem with terfs. Hatred of men is not an inherently reactionary position anymore than hating cis people is. The problem is the way terfs conceptualise gender, and the political goals that flow from that conceptualisation, which affects all trans people but primarily affect trans women/transfems. The spectre they raise about bathrooms, about sports, is always the age-old transmisogynistic conspiracy of “a man in a dress” “invading women’s spaces” because the historical legacy of transmisogyny looms large in public consciousness, and reinforced by medical/psychiatric institutions in particular, in a way that hatred and fear of trans men does not (autogynephilia exists as a mental illness but autophallophilia does not, for example. Julia Serrano talks about this in Whipping Girl if you want to read more on the subject). Terfs don’t care about trans men in men’s sports, they don’t raise the counter-spectre of trans men being mass assaulted in bathrooms by cis men who discover that they’re “really women” - these are not rhetorical moves that are interesting or useful to them, because it does not position them as victims. Trans men are hurt by their transphobic rhetoric, suffer under transphobic laws that are passed, and face transphobic discrimination from people in their lives as a result of how mainstream transphobia is (and I am speaking from significant and traumatic personal experience on this front). We are not, however, the face of the transgender boogeyman, and we are not the primary target of terfs. We are targets because we are trans, not because we are men. To be dismissive of the claim that terfs hate men is not a dismissal of the pain and violence transmascs go through, because our oppression is not founded on our manhood.

So when you see terf political efforts and terf rhetoric, their obsessive focus on trans women as arch villains who need to be destroyed, and you come to the conclusion that a hatred of men is the animating force behind terf political activity - that is a transmisogynistic conclusion, both because you are framing their transmisogyny as something that is primarily informed by a hatred of men, and because “terfs hate men” is a non-sequitur in discussions about the political and social damage that their beliefs cause. If terfs hate men, they do so as a hobby, and I don’t really give a fuck about their hobbies

[thelesbiancitizen]

tbh I'm not even against trans people being trans myself. I'm male trans person. In my country the trans community is mostly homosexuals with genital dysphoria - not sure if correct word - and we fight for basic human rights etc. along with the LGB. I feel like trans and LGB (and feminism) can co-exist when none of the groups infer on the other's fight for equality. That's the ideal for me we have our own space to talk issues and LGB and women have their own (after all they don't know trans as much as trans and we don't know women as much as women). But western trans culture is insane and I feel that it harming the perception of trans in my country making it lot harder for us when we're depicted as predator heterosexual males by government when we're all bis and homosexuals. When I say this on main blog they either blame feminists or call me transphobic or helping enemy. On matters LGBT we always looked to the west as the beacon of progress but now it just depressing. You seems friendly not "rudefem". Do you think western trans culture disregard people like me who speaking against them or am I just not getting something

This is a very important point that I think more feminists would do well to consider and to try to understand. Originally the T was added to LGB because the ‘T’ consisted mainly of homosexual people experiencing dysphoria and/or discrimination to the point that transition made for a more comfortable and safer experience -- particularly in countries where homosexuality is illegal. Transgender/transsexual/whatever term used, people like you who recognize your sex and aren’t trying to fool anyone or pretend that transitioning literally turns you into the opposite sex. Sometimes transitioning really seems to be the best option for some folks though it should not be a common occurrence and it’s not to be taken lightly. I really respect trans people who actually acknowledge their sex, acknowledge the reasons why they have transitioned, and for whom it is not a fetish but is truly a matter of safety and survival. The distinction you’ve brought up is an important one, because it’s the reason why the trans movement has gone off the rails in the US and is now spreading to other western countries: it’s the autogynephiles (AGP) vs. the homosexual transsexuals (HSTS). Ray Blanchard is the sexologist who coined these terms and has studied and written about transsexualism extensively. As a detransitioner, I have a lot of empathy for HSTS, especially those who acknowledge reality and don’t try to encroach upon female spaces like AGPs do. That’s the whole thing with AGPs, is that the sexual fantasy of becoming female is broken when someone (rightly) points out that you can become feminine, but you cannot actually become female. AGPs will go to great lengths to bully others into playing along with their fantasy — this is why AGP transsexualism is antithetical to feminism. AGPs either want to co-opt feminism and pretend they have a place in it and make it about their male-specific trans issues (which has nothing to do with feminism), or they want to write feminism off entirely as outdated and unnecessary, even dangerous. AGPs are the ones calling radical feminists Nazis and fascists because we refuse to kowtow to their fetishistic demands. They are the ones calling HSTS the “wrong kind of trans” and traitors to the movement — when really, the AGPs are the traitors. They are the ones discrediting the trans movement, who are actively causing the regression of trans rights. To many AGPs it’s just a game; it’s all part of their fantasy. They do not care or notice that they are actually harming people. I sympathize a lot with the LGB Alliance because of the way the current trans movement has gone, however I do think there is still overlap between the two that shouldn’t be ignored — neither HSTS nor dysphoric lesbians who identify as trans men deserve to be abandoned to the AGP-infested ‘T’. They are both LGB and T, after all — so is it fair to force them to choose? It isn’t right to lump those folks in with the AGPs and other fetish-y trans types. That’s where the trans movement needs to go next, I think. The “wrong kind of trans” people need to continue to speak up and denounce the reality-denying AGP-type trans who are setting the movement back and discrediting homosexuals who truly are just trying to live their lives.

Unfortunately though, AGPs vastly outnumber HSTS (since the majority of males are heterosexual, after all) and, not surprisingly, are much louder than the voices of trans-identified females. So perhaps the best way forward is what seems to be coalescing currently; an alliance between LGB, dysphoric trans-identified homosexuals (both male and female), and radical feminists, who can all agree that heterosexual males with crossdressing fetishes do not belong in any of our movements and should not be calling the shots when it comes legal and political issues that concern women and/or homosexuals. It’s very unfortunate that this western phenomenon is leaking into other parts of the world and beginning to affect the lives and wellbeing of trans people who live within very different cultural contexts.

[homoseggsuality]

“It is not hard to understand why transsexuals want to become lesbian-feminists. They have indeed discovered where strong female energy exists and want to capture it. It is more difficult to understand why so many feminists are so ready to accept men—in this case, castrated men—into their most intimate circles. Certainly Dionysian confusion about the erasure of all boundaries is one reason that appeals to the liberal mind and masquerades as ‘sympathy for all oppressed groups.’ Women who believe this, however, fail to see that such liberalism is repressive, and that it can only favor and fortify the possession of women by men. These women also fail to recognize that accepting transsexuals into the feminist community is only another rather unique variation on the age-old theme of women nurturing men, providing them with a safe haven, and finally giving them our best energies.

The question arises: are women who accept transsexuals as lesbian-feminists expressing gratitude on some level to those men who are finally willing to join women and pay for their male privilege with their balls? Gratitude is a quality exhibited by all oppressed groups when they think that some in the class of oppressors have finally relinquished their benefits to join them. But, of course, it is doubtful that transsexuals actually give up their male privilege. As one woman put it, ‘A man who decides to call himself a woman is not giving up his privilege. He is simply using it in a more insidious way.’ Furthermore, a man who decides to call himself a lesbian-feminist is getting a lot. The transsexually constructed lesbian-feminist is the man who indeed gets to be ‘the man’ in an exclusive women’s club to which he would have otherwise no access.

Women who think that these men are giving up male privilege seem to be naive about the sophisticated ways in which it is possible for men to co-opt women’s energy, time, space, and sexuality. Transsexually constructed lesbian-feminists may be the first men to realize that ‘if you can’t fight them, join them.’”

- Janice G. Raymond, The Transsexual Empire

[maryanntorreson]

10 incredible women in history you should know

Shutterstock

A few years ago, I began to notice that the people I taught about in my World History classes were, more often than not, European men.

When women were included in the state curriculum, they felt like token inclusions who were often related to men and discussed in proximity to them; not as independent actors. They were often queens or empresses, and only a few women of “normal” status made our lessons. I began the work of analyzing my World History lessons to make them more inclusive and diverse. I found that by including women with different backgrounds, fields, and from different parts of the world, I could provide students with role models they could identify with, and remind male students that women are capable of greatness too.

Here’s some additional good news: we don’t need to carve out a single month, special lesson, or unit, to incorporate women into our lessons. First, when planning, I ensure that I include women next to their male colleagues in all my materials. Then, when executing the lessons, I tell these women’s stories in as well-rounded a way as possible because it’s not just who we teach about— it’s how we approach their story that can give it power.

For example, when I teach about Cleopatra, I don’t just talk about her in relation to Julius Caesar or Marc Antony— I spend time discussing how she was a linguist, and the first Greek of the Ptolemaic line ruling Egypt who learned to speak Egyptian; she was a scholar and a woman who understood her people. When I teach about women like the Empress Josephine or Marie Antoinette, I discuss their emotions, letters, relationships, and struggles in unhappy marriages.

In all narratives that we share, male and female alike, we have the opportunity to humanize history, to make people on pages relatable by talking about their emotions, their mental health, and their experiences. When we bring them to life for students, we draw students into history.

I polled my students, past and present, to ask them which figures they remember most, and I have included some of their favorites as well my own. Here are 10 amazing women you should know and share, from the 300s CE to the 1900s CE:

1. Hypatia (c. 370 CE – March 415 CE) – Ancient Rome

Hypatia of Alexandria was a philosopher, mathematician, and teacher, born in Alexandria, Egypt around 370 CE, just before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. She was the daughter of a mathematician who taught her math and astronomy, and trained her in Neo-Platonic philosophy. She joined her father as a teacher at the University of Alexandria, and was a beloved teacher who fostered an open environment, teaching pagans, Jews, and Christians.

Both her presence as a female teacher and her insistence on an accepting classroom in an increasingly hostile religious atmosphere of early Christian Rome made her courses unusual and that much more coveted. She was widely known for her love of learning and expertise, but in 415 CE, due to her high profile and power as a non-Christian woman, she was targeted by a mob of Christian monks who killed her in the streets. They then also burned the University of Alexandria, forcing the artists, philosophers, and intellectuals to flee the city. Hypatia’s life models open-mindedness, generosity, and a love of learning, and her death is often discussed as a watershed turning point in the Classical world.

Topics you can connect her to in history include the connections between Roman and Greek philosophy, and the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Students have loved learning about a woman who taught in such an open-minded way, and learning she is one of my role models too.

 2. Empress Theodora (c. 497 – c. 548) – The Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine Empress Theodora was born into a circus family in Constantinople, just after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Her father likely worked as a bear trainer in the Hippodrome, and a young Theodora, it was said, took work as an actress and dancer. The Byzantine Emperor Justinian encountered her one day and, taken by her beauty, determined to marry her. However, because she was a commoner and had a bit of a reputation, special laws had to be passed in order for them to marry.

Though she never technically co-ruled the empire with Justinian, she had significant influence and power, and was a trusted advisor who promoted religious and social policies, many of which benefited women. Some of which included altering divorce laws and prohibiting the traffic of young women. Her name was listed in nearly all laws passed, she had regular communication with other foreign rulers, and received foreign envoys. Empress Theodora is credited with helping stabilize Justinian’s power after she urged him to stand his ground during the Nika revolt of 532 CE.

Topics you can connect her to in history include the Byzantine Empire, naturally, and students have told me they love her backstory and how she fought for women’s rights. They also enjoy how she pushed Justinian to make him a better ruler.

3. Sappho of Lesbos (c. 620 – c. 570 BCE) – Ancient Greece

Sappho of Lesbos was a lyric poet of Ancient Greece who was so famous during her life that statues were created in her honor. She was praised by Plato and other Greek writers, and her peers referred to her as the “Tenth Muse” and “The Poetess.” Very few fragments of her work survived because she wrote in a very specific dialect, Aeolic Greek, which was difficult for later Latin writers to translate.

Her poetry was lyric poetry – to be accompanied by the lyre – and was sung frequently at the parties of high-ranking Greeks. She wrote about passion, loss, and deep human emotions. Some of her surviving poems imply she may have had romantic relationships with women, and thus from her name we get the etymology of “lesbians” and “sapphic.”

Topics you can connect her to in history include the ancient Greeks and Greek philosophy and art. Every year, I have female students who have told me that they valued her inclusion because it was the first time they had heard about an LGBTQ+ person in their history class, and the representation meant so much to them.

4. Margery Kempe (c. 1373 – c. 1440 CE) – Middle Ages Europe

Margery Kempe was an English mystic and traveler, and is also the author of the first autobiography in the English language. She was the mother to 14 children. After her first child was born, Margery had a traumatic postpartum experience of a form of psychosis; for months she was catatonic, experiencing visions, and was tied to her bed for her own safety. For the rest of her life she would experience these visions, and later on she would leave her family and travel on pilgrimages to Spain, Jerusalem, Rome, and Germany.

Margery was known to weep loudly at various shrines and this behavior did not endear her to leaders in the church. She also insisted on wearing white like a nun, seeking specific permission to do so. She narrated her life and travels upon her return to two clerks who wrote it down on her behalf, so it is a unique book in that it shares her very specific life experiences in her own voice. Margery is a conflicting person to teach about because of her mysticism: do we discuss her experiences and travels through the lens of religion, or mental health? Historians often opt for both, as we seek to understand her contributions and life.

Topics you can connect her to in history include Christianity, the Middle Ages in Europe, and travel narratives like those of Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta. My students remember Margery fondly, and she makes their list of favorites consistently. They like how we talk about her through the lens of mental health and that she pursued what she believed despite naysayers.

5. Njinga of Ndongo and Matamba (c. 1581 – c. 1663 CE) – Post-Classical Africa

Njinga Mbandi was a warrior queen of modern Angola. She was born to a concubine of the king of Ndongo and as a daughter, it was unlikely she would take the throne, so her father allowed her to attend many of his important meetings and negotiations, and also allowed her to be trained as a warrior and educated fully. When her half-brother took the throne after their father’s death, he had her infant son killed and Njinga fled to nearby Matamba, but returned when her brother begged her to negotiate on behalf of her people with the rapidly encroaching Portuguese. Njinga did so successfully, due to her notably diplomatic skills and her insistence on respect from the Portuguese, going so far as to refuse to sit lower than them during the negotiations. She won significant concessions from the Portuguese.

When her brother died, Njinga took the throne; at various points during her reign, Njinga was deposed, regained power, lost territory, and gained it. She struggled against the Portuguese to maintain her peoples’ independence. Ultimately, when Njinga died at the age of 81, she left behind a stable kingdom that would be led by women for the majority of the next 100 years. While Ndongo was eventually taken by the Portuguese, Matamba maintained its independence through the 1900s.

Topics you can connect her to in history include Africa and the age of European exploration, as well as African resistance to Europeans. I think it’s important that we show examples of successful resistance and a powerful legacy.

6. Artemisia Gentileschi (c. 1593 – c. 1654) – Renaissance Europe

Artemisia Gentileschi was born in Rome to a gifted painter. Her father trained her to paint and even hired a tutor for her; ultimately this ended in tragedy, as the tutor raped Artemisia. There was a horrific trial and Artemisia was tortured with thumbscrews for “the truth.” Artemisia left for Florence, had a family, and was the first woman to gain membership to the Academy of the Arts of Drawing. She went back to paint in Rome for a time, as well as London where she painted in the court of Charles I, and then settled in Naples.

While in Florence, she painted for Michelangelo the Younger in the Casa Buonoratti, and was paid more than her male peers for her time and efforts. Artemisia’s work is profound, passionate, unabashed, and reclaims the space of women in the stories told about them. She makes women her focal points, her heroines, and paints them in positions of strength, and often revenge.

A topic you can connect her to in history is of course the Renaissance. Artemisia has stuck for many of my female students who have experienced sexual assault or harassment. They have expressed to me that they are inspired by her strength and find solace in her paintings. One of my students even went on to do her senior capstone all about Artemisia, two years after taking my class.

7. Malintzin/Malinche/Doña Marina (c. 1500 – c. 1550) – Colonial Americas

Born to a local chieftain in Central America and a mother whose family ruled a nearby village, Malintzin (or Malinali, or Malinche) was of high rank on both sides of her family. When her father died and her mother remarried, she was secretly sold into slavery so her brother would inherit the land that was her birthright. Malintzin was sold to several tribes, and over the course of her life would learn to speak Maya, Nahuatl, and later Spanish.

She was eventually given to Hernán Cortés and his men in 1519, and upon realizing her skill as a translator, Cortes came to rely on her. Malinztin was baptised as Doña Marina, and traveled with the Spanish for the next few years as they battled or negotiated with various Indigenous groups in the Aztec Empire. She provided cultural context and insight as well as communication skills. Without her, Spanish success in the region would have been difficult to achieve. By 1521, Cortes had conquered the Aztecs and needed her to help him govern. She was given several pieces of land around Mexico City as a reward.

Topics you can connect her to in history include Spanish conquest of the Americas and Indigenous peoples of the Americas. We talk about her complicated legacy as she is viewed by some as a traitor to her people, and to others as a woman who was enslaved and did the best she could to survive in difficult circumstances. My students typically find her a fascinating and sympathetic figure, a woman who did all she could to survive and thrive in adversity.

8. Olympe de Gouges (May 7, 1748 – November 3, 1793) – Enlightenment Europe

Olympe de Gouges, born Marie Gouze, was a political activist and writer during the French Revolution. Married off against her will at the young age of 16, she renamed herself Olympe de Gouges after her husband’s death and moved to Paris. She pursued her education there and rose to a high status in Parisian society. She would host salons for thinkers of the time and would write poetry, plays, and political pamphlets. De Gouges was a pacifist, an abolitionist, and wanted an end to the death penalty. She wanted a tax plan that allowed wealth to be spread more evenly, with welfare for the less fortunate and protections for women and children.

De Gouges was in favor of the French Revolution, but when the Revolution failed to provide the equality it claimed it would, she grew critical. The Revolution was in many ways built on the backs of women: women were some of the first to march against the king and take up arms and they served on the front lines of France’s battles against other European powers. Yet women were not being provided the true “egalite” promised in terms of rights as citizens.

De Gouges wrote her most famous work in response to this, “The Declaration of the Rights of Women” (1791). It was a direct play on The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen that was part of the first French Constitution. She became increasingly vocal, and in 1793 she was arrested by the revolutionary government and guillotined.

Topics you can connect with Olympe de Gouges, as well as Mary Wollstonecraft, include Enlightenment writers and the Age of Revolutions; it is unfair for Voltaire and Montesquieu to get all the limelight! Her ideas resonate for my students as being very modern, and they appreciate that she never backed down from her convictions and is a model of courage.

9. Manuela Sáenz (December 27, 1797–November 23, 1856) – Revolutionary Americas

Manuela Sáenz is the illegitimate daughter of a Spanish military officer and an Ecuadorian noblewoman. Her childhood included a traditional education in a convent, as well as learning how to ride and shoot. When she was 17,  her father arranged her marriage to an English doctor who was nearly twice her age, James Thorne. She moved with him to Lima, Peru, where she was connected with revolutionaries who were interested in overthrowing the Spanish in Latin America.

She returned to Quito, Ecuador in 1822, and met the revolutionary leader Simón Bolívar. They fell in love and would occasionally live together and go on campaign together. Manuela would go into battle with Bolívar in the cavalry, and was promoted from captain to colonel; she even saved Bolívar from assassination at least twice. She was also given the Order of the Sun, the highest military honor in the revolutionary government. Upon Bolívar’s exile and death in 1830, Manuela had no resources and lived the rest of her life in a small coastal village in Peru, making money by writing letters for sailors, including Herman Melville. She died in a diphtheria outbreak and was buried in a mass grave. Her role in Latin America’s independence has only recently been recognized, and she was granted an Honorary General title in Ecuador in 2007.

Topics you can connect her to in history include Latin American revolutions and the Enlightenment. My students find her time as a soldier and spy endlessly interesting! I enjoy including women, particularly in this period, who went into battle, such as the women of France who fought in the revolutionary wars. I have female JROTC students who like knowing they are part of a long tradition.

10. Lyudmila Pavlichenko (July 12, 1916 – October 27, 1974) – World War II

Lyudmila Pavlichenko was born in Ukraine and was one of the best snipers in history. She pursued sharp shooting when in school and  fought for the Red Army of the Soviet Union during World War II as a trained sniper. She soon began to rack up an impressive tally of kills, reaching 309 in just a few months on the frontline.

The German soldiers knew her by name, and she would engage in some of the most dangerous fighting, sniper seeking sniper. She was wounded four times in battle, and in 1942 she took shrapnel in her face.

She was sent to the United States to tour and drum up American support for the war effort, as the USSR and USA were allies at the time and the USSR depended on continued American engagement. She was often frustrated when asked by American journalists about issues around makeup, clothing, or hair. Finally, she spoke during a tour and said “Gentlemen. I am 25-years-old and I have killed 309 fascist occupants by now. Don’t you think, gentlemen, that you have been hiding behind my back for too long?” This was greeted by a roar of applause.

She got to know Eleanor Roosevelt during this tour and they became good friends. Upon her return to the USSR, Pavlichenko was promoted to major, awarded the Gold Star of the Hero of the Soviet Union, and received the Order of Lenin twice. She continued training other Soviet snipers, and then when the war ended, finished her education at Kiev University and became a historian and research assistant for the Soviet Navy.

Topics you can connect her to in history include World War II and the Cold War. Students adore her story: they find her sass, grit, and action movie skills endlessly fascinating.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Caitlin Tripp is a teacher and curriculum writer for Atlanta Public Schools. Born and raised in West Africa and Latin America, she loves to travel and learn more about the places she visits. She is passionate about women’s history, and in her free time enjoys snuggling up to a history documentary with her husband and their two cats.

Caitlin Tripp originally shared how to incorporate women into history lessons in her Educator Talk submitted through the TED Masterclass for Education program. To learn more about how TED Masterclass for Education inspires educators to develop their ideas into TED-style Talks, visit https://masterclass.ted.com/educator

10 incredible women in history you should know published first on https://premiumedusite.tumblr.com/rss

[comrade-meow]

Below is a statement we received from LGB Fight Back in the States, a new group that advocates for LGB rights under vicious, homophobic attack by trans ideology activists.

LGB Fight Back, a US-based organization that represents the interests of lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people, launched on February 14, 2021 with a Valentine’s Day-themed Week of Action. Protests took place across the US and Canada, co-sponsored by LGB Fight Back and Parents of ROGD Kids, a nationwide organization of parent support groups whose children are at risk of being medicalized and harmed by transgenderism. The protests sent a message of love to non-conforming kids everywhere: We love you just the way you are!

LGB Fight Back formed in response to the exponential rise of transgenderism and the forced teaming of the LGB with the transgender movement. Society at large is being gaslighted by activists into supporting the false idea that trans is “gay-adjacent.” The transgender movement, driven by medical corporations and Big Pharma, reinforces conservative stereotypes of male and female behavior, and directly targets LGB people for medical experimentation that shortens their lifespans, turns them into lifelong medical patients, and renders them sterile.

“Trans is not Gay Plus. It is not Gay 2.0,” says LGB Fight Back co-founder and lifelong progressive Belissa Cohen. “In fact, it’s just the opposite. The T is a parasite on the gay community.”

In pushing transgenderism for profit, Big Med preys on the internalized shame and external homophobia experienced by so many members of the LGB community. The invention of the “trans child” out of whole cloth reinforces the public narrative that trans identities are innate, lifelong, and unchangeable, and works to prevent LGB people from resisting medicalization.

“Not conforming to sex stereotypes is not a medical condition,” says Cohen. “It’s perfectly normal, especially for homosexual and bisexual people. So-called ‘transition’ is being used to force people, especially LGB people, to conform. Woke homophobia is just conservative homophobia with more glitter.”

The Valentine’s Week protests, most of which took place at youth “gender clinics,” addressed the harm being done to children by trans ideologues spouting the quasi-religious claim that it’s possible to be “born in the wrong body,” and their highly successful efforts to squelch research, discussion, and debate surrounding the subject. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, the site of one of the protests, has opened a second clinic in New Jersey to capitalize on this profit-driven fad. And Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where protesting parents were welcomed by local news crews, currently refers healthy girls as young as 13 for double mastectomies that will cause them lifelong chronic pain. CHLA’s Medical Director Johanna Olson-Kennedy has also created guidelines that allow children as young as 8 to be poisoned with artificial hormones. 

Pediatric “transition” causes sterility and lack of sexual function, echoing the “progressive” eugenics movement of the 20th century, in which more than 60,000 Americans, primarily women of color and “mental defectives”–including homosexuals, who were pathologized in the DSM until 1973–were sterilized.

Medical experimentation on non-conforming children concerns LGB Fight Back greatly, as these children are likely to grow up to be the next generation of LGB people. Ample research shows that, if not affirmed as “trans,” the majority of non-conforming kids grow up to be healthy lesbians, bisexuals, or gay men. The “trans-affirmative model” that turns young LGB people into poor facsimiles of the opposite sex saddled with lifelong medical issues is highly unethical. At best, it’s a new form of gay conversion therapy; at worst, it’s a new form of LGB eugenics.

“Lesbians, gay men, and bi people have been intentionally targeted for medicalization at least since Nazi doctor Carl Vaernet started using hormones as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality in the 1930s,” 

says LGB Fight Back co-founder and former trans activist Carrie Hathorn. “Big Pharma and Big Med turned our community into a revenue stream, and now they’re doing the same to kids.

“I was once captured by this ideology, too,” Hathorn continues, recalling the two trans activist workshops she led in 2014. One of the workshops was designed for supporters of whistleblower Bradley Manning, a gay man who declared himself “trans” on the day of his conviction. “As a trans activist, I thought I was being supportive. But now I realize that Manning and my ‘trans’ friends were just attempting to distance themselves from their own homosexuality. Just like ‘praying the gay away,’ transing the gay away doesn’t work.”

Hathorn is hopeful that the growing tide of detransitioners, many of whom are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, will soon become impossible to ignore in the US. In the UK in 2020, a high court ruled that children under 16 cannot consent to bone-disintegrating drugs sold as puberty blockers. The ruling was prompted by Keira Bell’s lawsuit against the Tavistock gender clinic. Bell, a detransitioned lesbian, has been vocal about the internalized homophobia that drove her own “transition.”

“LGB Fight Back is standing up for LGB people because we know we’re perfect just the way we are,” Cohen says. “We don’t need to be ‘transed’ into fake straight people.”

But medicalization is not the only threat that transgenderism poses to the LGB community. Lesbian and gay history and LGB historical figures are being “transwashed”, or rewritten as “trans.” Stonewall icon Stormé DeLarverie, a butch lesbian, has been posthumously rebranded as a “trans man”. Malcolm Michaels Jr, a self-described gay man who sometimes went by the name of Marsha P. Johnson, has been rebranded as a “trans woman” and made the star of the Stonewall Uprising in the popular imagination, though historical accounts place him far from the scene. From Joan of Arc to We’wha and Billy Tipton, the Chevalier d’Eon to Moll Cutpurse and Elagabalus, historical figures who had same-sex relationships and did not conform to sex stereotypes are being subsumed into a revisionist “trans history”.

One of the most serious issues currently facing the LGB community is that of sexual coercion and shaming by heterosexuals under the guise of “inclusiveness”. Heterosexuals adopt trans identities in order to gain access to lesbian and gay spaces; they demand that lesbians have sex with straight men calling themselves “trans lesbians” and that gay men have sex with straight women calling themselves “gay trans men”. The concept of “same-gender attraction,” which transgenderists have invented to replace same-sex attraction, is a tool of sexual coercion and conversion therapy rhetoric. Lesbians and gay men who have themselves avoided medicalization face accusations of “genital fetishism”, demands that they undergo “therapy” to “rethink their genital preferences”, stealth rape by deception or omission, and an overall climate of gaslighting.

Of particular note is the insidious concept of the “cotton ceiling”, a term coined by pornographer Drew DeVeaux, a straight man calling himself a “trans lesbian”, for a coercive tactics workshop held at Planned Parenthood. The “cotton ceiling” is a reference to the cotton of a lesbian’s underwear, and the term is used by straight men who view lesbians’ homosexuality – to borrow a word from lesbophobic straight man Julia Serano – as “systemic” oppression against men.

The reframing of homosexuality as bigotry has been used to systematically colonize and destroy precious lesbian and gay bars, events, dating apps, and community centers. LGB people, who rely on single-sex spaces for socialization and community as well as romance, increasingly find themselves isolated, alone, and vulnerable to homophobic bullying and sexual coercion.

“A lot of straight people think that by paying lip service to ‘LGBTQ+,’ they’re supporting us,” Cohen says. “But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Our organizations have been ideologically captured, LGB funding appropriated by the TQ+ and our political movement co-opted. We understand that straight people want to be allies; they want to help. But the culture of No Debate surrounding transgenderism has turned the people who should be our allies against us.”

“If we don’t stop this new form of homophobia,” Cohen continues, echoing concerns expressed by former staff at the Tavistock, “soon there will be nothing left of our lesbian and gay communities. It’s time for LGB people to stand up to LGBT Inc. and say, ‘Enough! Leave lesbians alone! Hands off the gays!’”

Websites: LGBFightBack.org & parentsofrogdkids.com

[gotinterest]

The biggest issue with the inclusion/exclusion discourse from the exclusion side is the tendency to compare it to other movements of exclusion instead of facing it as the unique situation it is.

To preface, I do believe that ace people are a part of the lgbt community. I say are and not should be because... well... lets be honest. Ace people are present in pride activities and LGBT communities around the world. Regardless of if people like it or not, ace people are active members of the LGBT community. We have evidence of asexuality being actively discussed as sexuality going back decades. They are already there. The case for exclusion is one of kicking them out, not preventing them from entering.

The problem with the way we discuss ace exclusionism is that it is currently painted with the exact same brush as other exclusionary movements such as TERFS and truscum... when a large portion of exclusionists have almost nothing in common with either of those groups. Yes, there are exclusionists who harass people, who say that asexuality doesn’t exist, who discount the experience of ace rape victims, who are terrible people. 

But unlike TERFS or truscum, there isn’t a component of systemic danger from the activities of most ace exclusionists. The worst the vast majority of ace exclusionists do is make ace people feel unwelcomed in the community. Which is bad, but it isn’t blocking access to healthcare, making the very act of going to the bathroom anxious and political, funding alt-right groups, organizing mass harassment campaigns, increased policing, committing hate crimes, etc. So painting ace exclusionist in general as the same kind of threat as TERFS or truscum grossly misrepresents the kind of people most of them are and the sort of threat they pose. As a result it is hard for many people (so many of whom are on the fence on the issue of inclus v exclus) to take exclusionism seriously as an issue when it appears as though the people who are discussing it have no sense of scale when it comes to the kind of threat it is to people’s material safety.

We cannot actually DEAL with exclusionism until it is openly acknowledged that a lot of people are exclusionists or lean towards exclusionism both because of the aforementioned misrepresentation and because the ace community has an issue with self moderation. 

Many of the exclusionists I have gotten a chance to talk to about their views have told me that the majority of ace people they have come across have been wildly homophobic. Now, just because that is their perception, doesn’t mean it’s reality (furthermore the homophobia of individuals should not be used to discount everyone who shares their sexuality). But it is worth looking into why this perception even exists.

The ace community is not anymore homophobic than any other community, but a growing problem with the ace community- particularly the online ace community- is how defensive it is of itself. 

Every time a post comes across my dash that calls out a loudly inclusionist ace person for homophobia or some other kind of bigotry, it is a) originally from an exclusionist and many times b) has comments added onto it which contain some kind of defense of the ace community by ace inclusionists.

Those defenses can be anything from “This isn’t actually homophobic” to “Not all ace people are homophobic” to “Well what about the stuff that [insert terrible exclusionist here] did?” 

The fact is, however, that just as the ace community is not any more inclined to homophobia than any other group, it is also not any more immune to homophobia than any other group. 

It is not appropriate to respond to specific accusations of homophobic behavior by individuals in a community by saying “well homophobia isn’t actually a problem in this community.” or “Well what about the behavior of these other people?” It is homophobic to immediately jump to defending the ace community, rather than acknowledging that- just as with every other community- homophobia is a problem in the ace community.

Furthermore, I have seen a growing number of posts that seek to distance the ace community from many accusations of problematic behavior by blaming trolls, old posts, or by downplaying the amount of ace people actively engaged in that behavior. While yes, there are trolls, old posts, and a few vocal individuals, many of these posts that I’ve seen lately (including a specific popular one that I’ve seen multiple times) attribute almost ALL problematic behavior to those three things. 

An example of a very popular problematic behavior to do this with is “ace people asking gay people to refrain from discussions of sex or public displays of affection”. I have heard many stories from several people I know IRL (who are even inclusionists!) of this EXACT thing happening in their GSA or college LGBT group. This isn’t just a case of loud random assholes on the internet, it’s a widespread enough IRL issue that it should be dealt with maturely rather than just being brushed off to the side.

Then, of course, there is the issue of ace inclusionists preemptively attacking people for “exclusionism” when they aren’t even exclusionists. For example, recently a post went around about (I believe) a bunch of LGBT+ flags being added to a list of emojis. In the list of added emojis, there were about 6 or so flags being added, but somehow neither the trans, bi, nor a single lesbian flag were included in the new list of flags. The OP made some sort of comment about “how do you forget the LG and T of LGBT?” The notes of the post were FILLED with people accusing the OP of being an exclusionist and using this to attack ace people. In reality? The OP wasn’t an exclusionist. They weren’t degrading the inclusion of the other flags at all, merely expressing outrage that three of the MAIN LGBT identities were left out for seemingly no reason. This sort of jumping to conclusions is not as common an issue, but it is one that I have increasingly seen.

What I have not seen, however, is a clear movement of ace inclusionists who look to address the kind of homophobia that is specifically within the ace community. I see, for example, plenty of posts from trans men decrying the sexism, nbphobia, and transmisogyny specific to the trans male community. I see plenty of posts from lesbians and bi women decrying the transphobia and, specifically, transmisogyny that develops in their communities. I’ve seen posts by lesbians addressing the biphobia in their community. So on and so forth.

I do not see a similar movement of self moderation from asexual inclusionists. I have seen plenty of asexual ace exclusionists decry the homophobia within the ace community, but not asexual ace inclusionists. As I’ve said, the ace community is not more homophobic than any other sexuality, but the way that homophobia manifests in the community can be specific TO the community (just as there are specific forms of transmisogyny in afab trans masc and nb communities, or specific forms of biphobia in the gay and lesbian communities, etc) and yes, that’s even after taking into account that there are many gay/bi ace people (because internalized homophobia can be uniquely influenced by the other identities held by an individual).

I don’t see inclusionist ace people discussing “how do we craft spaces that are safe both for sex repulsed ace people, AND gay/bi people who wish to discuss sex? At what point does one’s discomfort with discussions of sex in certain spaces go from being valid to being homophobic?” 

I don’t see the discussions of the latest big elephant in the room: “Why is there a repeated problem of the ace and sometimes even aro flags being newly included in things while stuff like the lesbian flag is still being left out? How can we best stand in solidarity with the lesbian part of the community on this issue?” 

I’ve not seen a single post by an asexual inclusionist going “Hey can we stop co-opting the struggle of trans women by making post after post after post that makes it seem like TERFS are one of the primary sources of ace exclusionism and that we are one of their main targets even though the vast majority of TERFS are neither in the LGBT community nor really think about ace people one way or another?”

These are all specific manifestations of bigotry in the ace community. So they should be dealt with! But currently even calling one of these things out as issues can get you labelled as an exclusionist and aphobic even if you are an inclusionist and/or ace. We will not be able to change the narrative of the inclusionist ace community as having an issue with bigotry, and specifically homophobia, if we do not actually address that bigotry. Ace people are a part of the LGBT community, so we ought to stand in solidarity with the rest of the community by working out these issues.

[poipoipum]

Okay I’m transmisogyny exempt btw

Sorry if this is a bad take, but I feel like online lgbt discourse is pretty much a mix of assimilationism, internalized trans/homo/biophobia and like the feeling that there just isn’t enough space for all of us. Like I feel like everyone sees the lgbt commmunity with the idea of scarcity and strength in numbers and how loud our voices are.

Idk I know the real life community is built upon like, rejection from society and like creating a culture built upon celebrating urself in a cishet world or whatever, but like online it’s primarily just about feeling represented and stronger in numbers. I mean I honestly think majority of people who dislike the word queer (aside from the unfortunate people who were called that) just dislike the way it’s used by ‘progressive’ media to kind of smudge all our identities together. But that’s just because I think straight people will try to repackage being gay or trans or whatever anyway to make it seem more palatable. And that becomes the problem when they start using other identities to make it seem more palatable (like how cishets use the bisexual identity to fit the straight agenda). So cishet people use queer which actual people do identify with as a way to make themselves seem progressive which feels like erasing other identities, because no one feels like they have any space in the community. Everyone always keeps on talking about like ‘resources’ about how we shouldn’t spend resources on asexuals or bisexuals because I think it’s an idea that people perceive scarcity.

Like I feel like esp on the internet the friction btw lesbians and bisexual women is that we cultivated a sapphic space, and a huge part of being a lesbian, is the rejection of the idea we like men and being able to only date women and be fulfilled and bisexuals, it’s more like the liberation from the idea that you only can date men and kinda being able to be free to date whomever u please. Like both are about liberation from being seen as straight, but because both aren’t compatible (not in relationship or like as a community I mean but both of those statements are incompatible) so in an internet space about celebration of identity (and emotion), it feels like there is not enough space for both to exist in the same place.

Plus I think that heteronormativity is the devil and it doesn’t die no matter how much u kill it, and so although being bisexual is it’s own thing, straights have co-opted it to mean like “wlw relationships aren’t real so it doesn’t matter + available to men” and that definition becomes a issue bc heteronormativity is the devil

I also think (omg pls don’t kill me for saying this) that like the issue btw the idea of trans community and like lesbians is the idea of like lesbians equating the acceptance of trans women as accepting the idea of dating a man because I think there is some internalized ideas about ‘men are from Mars women are from Venus’ internalized transphobia that aren’t addressed. I also think that lesbians feel that because straightness is such a force that any ideas about sexual fluidity unfortunately becomes co-opted by oppressors that it becomes imperative to protect ourselves from every perceived predator, even if there isn’t one.

I think the last problem I see is there is a perception of being a lesbian due to I think optics and again ‘palatability’ in a heteronormative society that prioritizes men to see us as foreign— and so when lesbians feel a type of way about how someone refers to us or whatever, which tbh are microagressions, it becomes a thing to like distance from like a group who doesn’t conform being palatable in a dude oriented society. But I think that further serves to alienate us tbh. But also I can’t blame some people for bc not only is there like a culture war, but also like some lesbians put active work in encouraging systemic discrimination plus the idea of a feminist is like being a lesbian so bad optics, yeah? But many who don’t deal w this I feel like alienating a group actually does make it worse and honestly

I feel like online there needs to be a shift from ideas from ‘queer studies/queer history’ because there is just too many different ideas (aka it will never be resolved using historical precedence because the internet is not about movements it’s about feelings) and maybe starting to break down these feelings of not having enough space and internalized homophobia and transphobia (I’m not trying to imply these actions don’t have real world consequences btw)

Sorry that I rambled. Also I would rather die than see more discourse on my page lol

[serenagaywaterford]

What is tender culture????

tender culture is all this cottagecore, domesticity, uwu crap that is particularly prevalent in lesbian/wlw circles. like i’m all for fluff and thinking positively but tender culture seems to reduce loving women to a set of stereotypical “feminine” soft and gentle traits. like here’s an example:

“we are in a toasty log cabin in the woods. it’s cold and we snuggle under this homemade quilt with our cat and quietly sip hot chocolate as the snowflakes gently fall against the reddening leaves outside. but we’re safe and warm and loved.”

it’s that sort of shit.

like i said, it’s not bad. it’s just that it’s EVERYWHERE. hell, i follow that lesbian domesticity blog myself tbh (altho i does grate on my nerves that it’s constantly about tender culture and never about sex. and really it is nothing like my relationship with my wife but hey. it’s about her and her wife, not universal experiences. her blog her rules). tender culture as a whole seems to idealise relationships (cos i’m sure it exists in bi and het circles too) as these sweet, cutesy, soft things that are always perfect and everyone is just gentle and calm and utterly loving all the time.

and there’s never any fucking. there’s never any indication that women are sexual beings and sex is an integral part of relationships. (don’t anybody fight me on this. it’s true and you know it.) there’s never any indication that people argue, or tease, or fight, or get turned on. hell, most of the time there’s never even any indication that people PLAY and joke even. it’s ALL like “uwu i barely touch your hand and feel the stars align and we are soft and perfect and fall asleep in your arms.” BARF.

i think, tbh, that’s the issue i have with it being SO prevalent in lesbian online culture. we’ve been told FOREVER that lesbian sex either doesn’t exist, isn’t real sex, is gross, doesn’t really count OR alternately is this fetishistic OTT porn thing for men to jerk off to. we’ve been taught to be ashamed and keep our SEXUALITY to ourselves. the tender culture thing makes being lesbian palatable to the masses because it’s so non-threatening.

and to separate it from lesbian culture specifically, we AS WOMEN have been taught since birth to shut up about sex. we’ve been shamed into silence about female masturbation and female arousal and female orgasm and female desire. like so many of us grow up without learning about our own bodies. a woman knowing her own body is a threat. a woman seeking her own pleasure is a threat. basically a woman talking about sex is a threat. 

and even besides sex, we’ve been socialised to be calm, gentle, nice, accommodating, nurturing, kind, and so so soft. we’re not allowed to be hungry, funny, angry, emotional, mean, have boundaries, be wild and dirty and feral. we’re not allowed to scream and fight unless we’re one of “those” type of women as if all women don’t want to just fucking scream sometimes. 

sometimes women just need to get themselves off too. i just find it very… dangerous to ONLY see that non-threatening tender side of things because it upholds patriarchal behavioural gender norms to such a crazy degree.

so all this “tender culture” crap that basically denies this side of female existence by its silence bothers me. which is why i like to reblog posts critical about tender culture sometimes, alongside tender culture posts which i do like also. we need reminders that there is NOTHING wrong with masturbation, sexual arousal, sexual pleasure, fucking (not just ~making love~), and being a woman while doing it. there’s nothing weird or wrong about being angry and upset and playful and horny and wild. i would just really like to see more content like that. 

there is an argument that women/lesbians have been so overly sexualised by men that it’s a direct response to that pure sexual objectification. like, hey, women have feelings and care, and especially lesbians are romantic and loving too. not just sex objects shoving dildos in each other while wearing high heels. i can see some validity in that reaction. but to me, there is just too much and it starts to seem like that ALL lesbians want is hand holding and a pretty garden and cats in some idyllic cottage somewhere. it seems to have flipped too far the other way into a cliched “perfect woman” under patriarchy non-threat stereotype.

i also recognise that the moment a woman starts talking about sex, especially lesbians, it easily gets co-opted and appropriated by perverts and fetishists and pornsick men (and women). it’s hard to just talk about our experiences without it being viewed a specific way by outsiders. it’s either hyper-sexualised or hypo-sexualised by someone else. there is always gonna be some sick fuck with his dick in his hand ready to go or some conservative prick screaming bloody murder about morals as soon as we try to discuss our own experiences. but i don’t think that means we should shut up about everything sexual or dirty or “nasty” about our reality as women out of fear of these scrotal cumsacks.

it’s all about balance, really.

and being willing to get up and yell: GET OUT. THIS ISN’T FOR YOU. when you see them infiltrate something for us. you see a man make a lewd comment, call him out. make him uncomfortable. take back what we have from them.

like i said, there’s nothing inherently wrong with tender culture. i just think it needs to be balanced with actual reality. there’s nothing wrong with romantic daydreams and just wanting someone to love you gently, and to cherish you and your relationship. and especially when the world is so insane, it’s fine to want something calm and gentle. but real relationships are not JUST that one thing. and i think tender culture gives a false sense of reality as to what normal adult relationships are like. i’ve been told here on my blog that even talking about sex with my wife is TMI (it’s not), talking about masturbation is TMI (it’s not), and even worse that me arguing with my wife and getting pissed off at her is something to be so terrified of (it’s not) that i should “get somewhere safe”. no. i should work it out and communicate. not run away every time things aren’t fluffy and calm and tender. that’s so unhealthy. and that’s what i feel being inundated with tender culture does. it gives a warped idea about what a healthy relationship is.

like no. tender culture denies this not so nice reality of human relationships, especially when you live together. like yes, of course we have the beautiful, romantic, tender side too. but people argue. people can fucking hate each other sometimes when they’re stressed out or frustrated and it comes out in arguments. and there is a scale. there’s a point when it becomes unhealthy and toxic but i think it’s equally unhealthy to never argue and force yourself to push any feelings you have down in order to maintain some idealized genteel version of a relationship that you’ve been bombarded with online as what you SHOULD have. 

and this goes for joking around and playfulness too. sometimes when i joke with my wife and call her a bitch or she says “rude” things to me, people are like “OH MY GOD!” but… i mean, that’s just us? it’s joking. (we sometimes do it purposely in front of people to laugh at their reactions cos we are both assholes.) we play with each other a lot. she’s an incessant tease. she calls me an idiot. i literally tell her i’m gonna punch her in the face when she’s teasing me. do i mean it? of course not. we roughhouse and wrestle and playfight even (not sexually jsyk. just simply playing which is SO LOST in this society. we don’t do any bdsm bullshit). it’s a type of physical expression that doesn’t hurt anybody and requires a certain level of connection and trust too. the fact i can tackle her onto the sofa and she squeals and grapples me back is HEALTHY. adults can play too. it’s like that post i made a while back when i talked about how my wife shoved her fingers in me when i was bending over unaware and laughed about it ...and was told it was TMI. like um ...we are physically intimate and playful and it’s not a BAD THING. and i’ll share it cos honestly? if you don’t have that level of intimacy and trust and fun, i personally think there may be something wrong. (if it crosses personal boundaries for you, that’s something else. but she knows it doesn’t bother me.) on my blog i will talk about my relationship with my wife in ALL its glory, bad, good, fun, horny, loving cos it is a fully-rounded relationship and adults don’t experience just one thing.

i fucking love sex with women and i was denied it for so long i’m not about to shut up about it now. i love fucking and the female body in all its wet, messy, soft, beautiful glory. i love being in love finally and properly and i won’t shut up about that either. i won’t be shamed to be quiet about my body or my sex life or my relationship that ISN’T perfect. (like i’m literally going to kill her if says to me one more time that 80s music is the best music lmao like she’s gonna kill me if i leave one more dirty bowl beside the sofa for the stupid idiot dogs to get at). 

to some people, i guess reality doesn’t matter. they only want the daydreams and fantasies, or they only live in a soft cloud world. that’s up to them. maybe that’s what they need in their lives. and that is fine. for a while but it isn’t real life and it’s not what you should strive for. it SHOULD be part of what you strive for however. you should have someone who cherishes you and cares and loves and respects.

i just don’t think tender culture should be as overwhelming as it is. it sets standards that i don’t think are realistic. let’s talk about sex or arguing or any range of human relationship issues too. don’t get rid of tender culture, at all. keep it. cherish it. let it give you hope and positivity and ease loneliness and isolation. healthy, loving, respectful fantasies are important af. but don’t act like a puritanical dunce when a woman talks about sex or hunger or anger as well.

i mean i’m not asking for sexually explicit content and i’d never go into intense detail about my own life (that’s what fanfic is for lmao) but a little recognition that women aren’t just domestic soft cliches. that’s all.

i don’t see any of that in tender culture. it’s all soft uwu feathery kisses and soothing fingers brushing along a forearm. blah… sometimes you need to get fucked. sometimes you need to laugh. sometimes even you need to argue.

wow ok

sorry anon

you asked me what tender culture was and i went off on a rant about why i hate it lol. i’m sorry. you asked such a simple question and i word vommed all over it.

[noahfence1d]

Queer people who took time coming to terms with our identities know the dance of avoiding definitive terms and labels. We know what it can look like when someone is a baby queer in waiting; we certainly understand what it’s like trying to figure out how to exist both authentically and safely in the world, calculating the risks of being your true self, and why that waiting period exists—and, for some, never really ends. This process of coming to terms and coming out, however, poses different challenges and has specific implications when you’re a celebrity. Some celebrities—especially those with teen fanbases, like Shawn Mendes or Taylor Swift—are no strangers to being pinned as queer icons because of their presentation, language, or even the friendships they have, despite not being out as queer. However, figures like Mendes or Swift are known for vehemently pushing away from any narrative defining them explicitly queer. Other celebrities, like Harry Styles, have strongly leaned into queerness—or at the very least, embraced being coded as queer.

Look up “Harry Styles queer” on Google and you’ll get a range of headlines from “We need to talk about why Harry Styles is a lesbian icon” to “Harry Style’s New Music Video is Extremely Bisexual.” Styles often dons floral suits and a more stereotypically feminine demeanor alongside lyrics like ones from his song “Medicine,” which are unmistakably bisexual: “The boys and the girls are here/ I mess around with him/ And I’m okay with it.” Recently, Styles announced a tour with artists similarly dubbed queer icons, Jenny Lewis and King Princess, a musical setup that seems like it was made in heaven for queer fans. On his new Saturday Night Live appearance, Styles played a sexually ambiguous character in the Sara Lee sketch, referencing being thirsty for men, almost locking in his “brand” of queerness yet again. In October 2019, Styles’s single “Lights Up” was also deemed a bisexual anthem by certain members of the queer community, especially as the corresponding music video shows a nearly naked Styles surrounded by people of all genders who are touching and carressing his body.

In a 2019 interview with Rolling Stone, he explained why he often dons rainbow flags on stage at his concerts and why he’s been so vocal about supporting queer people. “Everyone in that room is on the same page and everyone knows what I stand for. I’m not saying I understand how it feels. I’m just trying to say, ‘I see you.’” At this point, Styles isn’t new to curiosity surrounding his sexuality. Throughout his time with One Direction, rumors about his sexuality swirled, as he had a close relationship with bandmate Louis Tomlinson. The relationship became a hot topic, and one hugely obsessed over in fan and fanfiction communities. In a 2017 interview with The Sun, while discussing the way that celebrity sexuality is constantly questioned, he said, “It’s weird for me—everyone should just be who they want to be. It’s tough to justify somebody having to answer to someone else about stuff like that … I don’t feel like it’s something I’ve ever felt like I have to explain about myself.” At his final show for his tour in Glasgow in 2018, Styles announced onstage, “We’re all a little bit gay.”

For much of his career, it’s almost seemed like his fanbase is rooting for his queerness. One reason that online communities seem to be so obsessed with queer-adjacent celebrities like Styles is that they normalize queerness, making it feel more accessible. “If they were to come out, it would be a huge benefit to LGBTQ visibility in the media, and a lot of people in the LGBTQ community would love to have a celebrity of that stature on ‘their’ side,” Ash, a bisexual woman, told me. But Styles doesn’t actually claim queerness just because many fans, queer and otherwise, have hoped that he’ll one day do so explicitly. “Can straight people be queer?” asked a 2016 Vice article about the impact of the term’s increasingly broad application. The fact is that cis, straight people can’t be queer—so what does that mean when queer communities tout artists like Styles or Swift as part of our culture?

At some points in history, having these kinds of allies for the community who are not queer themselves, like Lil’ Kim, who has advocated for gay men and against homophobia in the rap community since the early 2000s, has been monumental. Queer audiences of yesteryears also gravitated toward performers like Dolly Parton who didn’t have to be queer themselves because they were accepting and loving toward all, and used their platform to normalize and uplift the queer communities that have celebrated them. In this day and age, however, expectations of performers have heightened. Unlike other celebrities dubbed “queer icons” who happen to be straight, including Madonna, Janet Jackson, or Parton, the fanbases of artists like Styles’s skew younger. And younger audiences don’t just want performers who see and welcome them. They want performers who are them—artists who understand the queer experience because they are queer, and they’re here to reflect audiences back to themselves.

So why the critique if there are seemingly so many positives to any representation or acceptance? It’s not that Styles, or any celebrity or public figure for that matter, owes us any information about their sexualities. On one hand, simply by existing in such a public manner, these celebrities offer a sliver of hope that there might be someone just like us navigating the world of queerness and identity. Celebrities like Styles or Swift—who has made use of queer aesthetics herself, and whose friendship with model Karlie Kloss has been the subject of rumors—remind us of who we were when we navigated our queerness more subtly before we were ready to explicitly tell someone close to us, or our resident queer community. Entertainers like Jackson or Parton became queer icons because they embraced queer fans during a closeted time, and perhaps it felt okay to have acceptance without representation. It was clear the performers weren’t trying to be queer. On the other hand, with Styles or Swift, the lines are blurred, and it’s unclear whether they’re trying to say they’re one of us or merely accept queer fans while borrowing from the culture to fit in and create a brand.

“I think it’s important for white queer folks to interrogate the whiteness of their queer idols, and work to understand why they feel more inclined to celebrate the visible queerness of one artist over another.”

There’s often a concern that celebrities are co-opting queerness as a marketing ploy. With the long history of queerbaiting (using the possibility of or undertones of queerness to gain favorability with queer people) in popular culture, there’s a certain level of disingenuousness to letting the bait and switch go on with minimal critique. The kind of support and lauding that celebrities like Styles receive for more playful expression and experimentation is not always present for queer people of color like Syd (formerly of The Internet), Alok Vaid-Menon, or Big Freedia. When she sees mostly white, thin, able-bodied figures with “queer energy” centered as icons in the queer community as opposed to queer people of color, Olivia Zayas Ryan, a queer woman, wonders why. “If you’re showing up for a pretty white boy in a tutu, where are you when Black and brown queer folks are vilified, ridiculed, and worse?” she told me. “If you are excited and feel seen when queer aesthetics are in the mainstream, what are you doing to honor, protect, and recognize the folks who created them? I think it’s important for white queer folks to interrogate the whiteness of their queer idols, and work to understand why they feel more inclined to celebrate the visible queerness of one artist over another.”

Conversation around both queerbaiting and our curiosity about celebrity queerness is an ongoing and complicated one. For example, there are theorists who have posited that Kurt Cobain was a closeted trans woman. “Many transgender women see themselves in his shaggy hair, his penchant for nail polish and dresses, and his struggles with depression,” Gillian Branstetter, a transgender advocate and writer, told me. Cobain’s fascination with pregnancy (“In Utero”) and his distaste for masculinity (“In Bloom”), as well as his partner Courtney Love’s references to having a more fluid lover (“He had ribbons in his hair/ And lipstick was everywhere/ You look good in my dress”) stoked this interest in his sexuality and presentation. “It sounds very familiar to trans women whose own relationship with masculinity and femininity was often expressed in coded ways before they came out,” says Branstetter. Styles, who like Cobain shows disinterest in conforming to a traditionally masculine rock-star presentation, seems to spark the same interest in fans from the queer community.

With our investment in Styles or other celebrities who are likely straight but exude “queer energy,” it feels as if we’re looking for a mirror of ourselves, seeking to claim the most popular public figures as our own, and in turn feel more normal and accepted. Perhaps our obsession with artists like Styles comes down to the excitement of feeling visible—but what do fans of potentially straight queer icons like Styles actually want? Can we thread the needle between feeling seen and normalized in our queerness while also feeling the imbalance between Styles’s privilege and the most marginalized people in the queer community’s lived experiences? Ultimately, it’s queer fans who get to decide if Styles’s kind of allyship and solidarity with the queer community is enough, or if it’s begun to give off the all-too-familiar stink of disingenuous baiting.