#some people will use it about themselves within gay spaces

[madtomedgar]

"I don't want people offended by "f****t" as a "slur" following me" --homophobic asshole or 3edgy5u tumblr kweer?

[letters-to-lgbt-kids]

My dear lgbt+ kids, 

A lot of supportive statements use love-centered language: 

Gay love is love. 

It’s so weird to be homophobic, how can you hate people for being in love? 

Love can’t be wrong. 

Love can’t be a sin. 

The gay agenda is just loving your partner. 

If you hate someone for who they love, you are the one who needs to work on yourself.

These are just a few examples, you can probably think of some more at the top of your head. Love-centered rhetoric is omnipresent and for good reasons: it’s often the simplest approach that is the most effective. 

For people who are not part of the community, and especially those in circles where lgbt+ rights are not intuitively seen as something worth fighting for, love-centered language offers an easy connection point. Homosexuality may feel “other” but love does not. We can take this picture that feels familiar and good, and we can say “look, we can change the genders of the people in the picture but nothing else changes. It’s still a loving relationship.” 

And this isn’t some manipulative strategy, it’s just a kickstarter for connection. That’s why it can also work for people within the community! If you struggle with internalized homophobia, with shame or guilt, you too can look at that picture and remind yourself “I am not gross/sick/sinful (or whatever you struggle with), it’s just love and love can’t be wrong”. Love-centered language can be especially comforting and affirming if you feel a bit lost in the more political/technical discussions in lgbt+ spaces. It just takes you back to the basics, to “this is who I am and it’s okay and good to be who I am”. 

But with all that being said: as helpful as it can be, some people in the community just don’t feel that personal connection to love-centered language. This can be for a lot of reasons, for example because they feel like it only covers sexual orientation and not gender identity, or simply because they are not, and perhaps do not wish to ever be, in a romantic relationship. 

In this case, we can say, well, love also includes loving yourself, so we can still say that being lgbt is all about love: love who you love and love who you are! 

But for some people that’ll still feel clunky - and that’s okay. Love-centered language is a lovely tool but it’s also just that: a tool. You can use it or leave it in the toolbox. 

Maybe a joy-centered approach feels more intuitively right for you: life should feel good. Everyone has a right to strive for happiness and live the way that brings them joy. Or an authenticity-centered approach: people are at their best when they live authentically and can express themselves in the ways that feel natural to them. 

If you need that little kickstarter for connection, either to help someone else or to help yourself, that kickstarter can be love - but it doesn’t have to be. 

With all my love (and joy), 

Your Tumblr Dad 

[ceilidhtransing]

I feel like so much shitty discourse could be avoided if people more consciously bore in mind the fact that Mainstream Society and The Queer Community are, you know, meaningfully different spaces that often have different social phenomena and different issues.

Random example, there'll be a discussion about femininity often being prized over masculinity, especially transmasculinity, in some queer spaces. And there'll be a bunch of transmasculine people talking about being made to feel unwelcome once they came out, feeling pressured to identify as nonbinary rather than as a binary man as that receive less hostility, being increasingly isolated and othered once they started T, feeling pressured to act more feminine and GNC, being told that their presence as a man makes others in the space uncomfortable, etc.

And then inevitably someone will respond with something like “OP what fucking planet are you on. You're fucking insane if you think femininity is prized over masculinity in society. And the idea that nonbinary people have privilege over binary trans people - what is this fucking enbyphobic bullshit? God, some people are so stuck in an echo chamber of terminally online tumblr queers with their invented problems that they've forgotten what it's like in the real world.”

But was the discussion about wider mainstream society? Or was it very particularly about the queer community and issues that these people have faced specifically within that community?

The queer community is a subculture (arguably many subcultures but let's try to keep it simple), and it's totally, utterly standard for subcultures to - even deliberately, as an act of pushback - value different things from the mainstream culture. Aesthetics thought of as “weird” or “[insert slur here]” by the mainstream can be highly prized in the queer community. Identities that are all thought of as equally “fucked-up” and “cringe” by the mainstream can find themselves organised into some weird hierarchy of validity and oppressed-ness within the community. Politics which are considered extremely fringe and radical by the mainstream can be considered the default norm, even a necessity, in the queer community. Gender expressions that are seen as the most basic “normal” thing ever in the mainstream can be devalued by the queer community for “not looking queer enough” or “being straight-passing”. And none of this is a contradiction because this is pretty much how subcultures operate! They assert different values and cultural norms from the culture they exist within and that's partly what makes them subcultures.

So if someone's pointing out “I face this issue specifically when I'm interacting with queer spaces��, it doesn't do the conversation any good to assume that they're talking about mainstream society and attack them for “being deluded about how the real world works” or “inventing fake problems to sound more oppressed” or something. (And the inverse - someone pointing out “I face this issue when I'm interacting with the mainstream” and someone else responding with “I don't know what you're talking about; I never face that issue at all [in my exclusively queer friend group and support network]” - is far rarer, but it does still happen, and it's just as unhealthy for the discussion. Probably the most common example of this I can think of is when cis gay and lesbian people discuss homophobia they've faced, for instance to do with their gender expression, and someone goes “but that doesn't happen, because actually cis gays are a privileged group and I've never seen anyone attack their presentations” - yes, because the frame of reference you're using is the queer community, where being gay is pretty much the expected default, and you're forgetting that in mainstream society, even cisgender gays and lesbians are by no means “a privileged group” that experiences no oppression ever.)

People need to be able to discuss issues in the specific social contexts they're talking about without it being basically guaranteed that someone will misinterpret them and start jumping down their throat in anger at something that wasn't even said or implied. It is so bad for the community when people seemingly can't fathom that the dynamics at play might be different within queer spaces versus out in mainstream society and it leads to so much pointless toxicity and aggressive misunderstanding.

[weirdly-specific-but-ok]

Why the fight for queer rights isn't over (it should be obvious, but to some people it isn't)

TW: transphobia and homophobia

Hi, Tumblr, this is Asmi. If you know me, it's probably as the Good Omens Mascot, which is flattering. I've found so much love and queer positivity in the good omens fandom, and the beautiful thing is how it's canon. Many people outside the queer community don't realise how crucial media and communities like this are. Right now since I'm on break from education, I'm on tumblr for most of the time I'm awake (which is not a lot, I nap more than Crowley). It's wild how different it is from the real world, that I live in at least.

I'm sure a lot of you might have had a similar experience to this: Basically, two people in my life, my bio father and my ex, both told me to my face that queer people needed to stop calling themselves oppressed and how now it's queer people who hold all the power and are oppressing other people. With all due respect, what the fuck.

I live in India, and being a trans guy who is bi and aspec, it's a cesspit. While I'm gendered correctly on Tumblr, and people are so loving and supportive, in real life even my friends who say they support me misgender me 90% of the time. Same with my family. In my previous college which I had to leave because of bullying by both the students and admin, even the queer students would misgender me (I told them I used they/them pronouns, because he/him would have been too unsafe, but even that they didn't manage). In the college I'll join next, it won't be safe for me to be out at all, at risk of losing opportunities and safety. Gay marriage is still illegal. Homophobia and transphobia is the norm. This doesn't even cover all the daily indignities like queerphobic jokes, casual discourse on whether or not we deserve rights, etc. Discrimination against aroace-spec people is rampant even within the queer community, worldwide.

And I live in an urban area, one of the largest cities in India known for its progressiveness and for being relatively safe for queer people. I am privileged compared to other queer people here. The story in other cities, in rural areas which make up most of the country, is far more horrifying. I'm unqualified to speak about anything other than my own experience, but if you can (if you are in a stable and calm enough mental state to handle the information, please put your mental health first) I'm sure there are first person accounts on the many forums.

The fight for equality is not over. It doesn't end with laws riddled with loopholes, it doesn't end even with laws that genuinely help the queer community. Aside from the huge problems of living safely and with access to equal opportunities and resources for people, we deserve dignity, peace, and the right to feel accepted and that we're not an abnormality. And so much more.

I haven't said anything that hasn't been said before, but it can't be said enough. To the queer people reading this, take all my love. We need to stand together, eliminate discourse over who is queer enough to be queer, and be the safe space that the world will not provide for us.

It's not over, and it hasn't been won by a long shot, but what matters is that we're fighting. Even existing as ourselves in a world that tells us it is a crime, is defiance and a step towards making this right.

[what-even-is-thiss]

This is rather personal so I completely understand if you don't want to respond to it, but how do you manage being transgender in Christian spaces?

I have so many very close trans friends who I would love to invite to church and whatnot with me, but I'm always very concerned about possibly putting them in dangerous and uncomfortable situations.

I do my research before entering most Christian spaces I’m unfamiliar with. I most often stick to ELCA spaces because the organization as a whole is queer positive and I know what symbols and terminology individual congregations use to indicate they’re queer friendly.

I think what’s good to remember is that individual congregations and organizations within the same denomination can have different policies. Like there’s some individual ELCA churches that are homophobic and some individual Baptist churches that are queer positive.

If you don’t know how an individual space feels about queer people it might be worth just asking the pastor or priest. Also in a church setting there’s a difference between being tolerant, accepting, and affirming.

Tolerant means they don’t like you at all but they won’t kick you out. Accepting can often be a we’ll accept you and even be friendly but we might still quietly think it’s wrong. Affirming means they’re positive about it. Yes it’s okay that you’re gay and we don’t care that you’re gay at all. We might even celebrate it.

Different denominations might also have symbols they use on websites or church signs to mark themselves as a queer friendly spot. The ELCA has reconciling in Christ (RIC) congregations for example that use this symbol:

If that symbol is on their website or posted somewhere in the church that means the congregation has voted to have an official policy of being welcoming to lgbt+ people.

Other denominations might have different policies about it. I know from living in urban Texas for a while that affirming Baptist and Methodist churches don’t generally have subtlety about it when they’re enthusiastically pro lgbt because they’ve got a reputation for being nasty towards the gays and so when they’re accepting they tend to advertise that so people know.

When in doubt though, ask. And judge for yourself whether their answer is good enough for you. Some people are fine going to a church that just quietly ignores their gayness but other people want full acceptance and affirmation upfront.

When you invite your trans friends into religious spaces do your homework first and give them an idea of the full picture so they can judge for themselves. Some people will walk stealth into the mouth of conservative hell and some people will wanna wear a rainbow flag during the service. Just make sure your friends know what they’re walking into.

[britts-galaxy-brain]

Skeleton bat is really starting a fight with lesbians about their own orientation and I just. Why??

Arrogance and performativism over shit they very clearly don't fully understand.

Putting the utmost disrespect on Leslie Feinberg's name in order to do it. Genuinely triggering a friend over it. Implying a bunch of different types of people as "basically men".

Some gay men refer to themselves as "girl", "queen", "she", "femboy", etc. I never see that being used to claim that "gay men can be attracted to women because some of them are basically women". Butches, he/him lesbians, lesbiys, transmascs, etc are basically the lesbian version of that and yet we get argued with and demeaned fuckin constantly for clarifying who we are and what lesbianism means.

I'm butch. I use he/him within my community spaces. I am not a fuckin man or a diet man.

[meraki-yao]

RWRB Movie Analysis: Henry's Seclusion and Perception-Part 1

“They used to call me the prince of England’s hearts, but now it feels like everyone hates me.”

“Hey, they still love you.”

“They love the idea of me. And now they are faced with the reality.”

These three lines stuck with me for some reason.

The time gap between the email leaks and Alex flying to London is significantly longer in the movie. In the book it was almost immediate, I think in the span of one or two days? But in the movie, it was a week.

In that week, Alex wasn't shielded away from media or news about the matter, seeing as he watched Miguel's interview on his laptop. We already know that his parents are ultimately incredibly supportive of both his sexuality and his relationship with Henry. The White House Staff, his team, are implied to be supportive as well, since I don't think the press conference and his speech was solely his effort, plus Zahra said she's proud of him. Him getting outted before he was ready was a terrible thing that happened to him, but amidst the chao and pain, he had a support system, and he wasn't limited to seeing a single side of the public's reaction.

Henry though? Henry and Bea, the only other person who supports him (I do think Shaan does care about and support Henry, but he's also a palace employee under orders), had all of their electronics, their tools to access the internet, outside information taken away from them. He was stuck with a brother who was endlessly berating him, a grandfather who was giving him the cold shoulder, and a neglectful, absent mother. Bea loves him, but when the rest of the family is crushing down on him there's only so much one person can do. Even in meetings, even if the situation is entirely about him, about his sexuality and relationship, he's not involved in discussions. There's a heartbreaking shot during Alex’s speech, where although he’s in the centre of the frame, although he's at the head of the table, the other people aren't facing him, they’re talking among themselves, not talking to him. And Henry looks like he desperately wants to be part of the conversation, but he can't cut in, and you can see his eyes drop and him giving up. I don't know if anyone has had that experience, of wanting to join in a discussion but constantly getting cut out or ignored, but I can tell you, it feels fucking awful.

So in that horrible, horrible week, Henry was forced into an information cocoon, where all the information he received was how bad this thing that was forced onto him was for the crown's image, how awful of a person he is for being gay and pursuing a relationship with Alex/ letting a “mad infatuation” ruin the image they made him create, and how others in the palace are dealing with this for him in a way he doesn't agree or have a say in. That's all he could see, and when that’s all you can see, it starts to feel like the definitive truth.

That's why it feels like everyone hates him. Because within the space he was confined in, save for Bea and Shaan, everyone did act like they hated him. No Alex, No Pez, No. Oscar, no public opinion. He was forbidden from seeing any support. That's why he feels so lost.

So when finally, he gets to see a sea of rainbow outside Buckingham Palace, he's so overwhelmingly glad and determined, as he realizes that he's still the Prince of England's heart, he is still loved by his people, perhaps even more so now, because he's one of them. He's their rainbow prince.

He's finally confident, as he takes his love's hand and steps out onto the balcony, greeted by howling cheers and applause, an ocean of support that he didn't get to see before, but was always there.

Alex was right all along.

"They still love you."

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

When my wife and I first started fucking dating, we had a shorthand phrase we would exchange when someone was being...some kind of way about gender and sex and sexuality...to sort of indicate to each other what we thought was happening.

"I see we've decided to round to the nearest dick."

See, wifey and I are both trans and bisexual in REALLY similar ways, but with different AGABs right? And we noticed with time that interesting trends showed up. For me, people, even those who know I'm bisexual, treat me like they would treat me as a straight person in their life. Wifey often gets treated like loved ones treat exclusively gay people. Then with gender it's similar! People assume I *don't* have a dick and so they treat me like they would treat [failed] women in their lives. They assume Wifey DOES have a dick and treat her like they would treat a [failed] man in their life. Even beyond that, when wifey and I are TOGETHER, we are automatically defaulted into the "straight" category or the "gay" category depending on which of us (how many of us) they are assuming has a dick, and then defers authority in the relationship to whoever they think has the dick.

It's all gender essentialism all the way down, and interrelated essentialism across the whole spectrum, butit shows up in different ways depending on how people perceive our relationship to our genetalia

And it IS about our genetalia because it almost always gets explicit about it at some point.

I think what I've always found the most interesting is how other queer and trans folks interact with the concept of rounding to the nearest dick, including how we as a community wield it against each other laterally. The experience of being called "basically a woman" by lesbian partners in order to reconcile their discomfort with my gender (as distinct from lesbian partners whose reconciliation of my gender with their sexuality involved calling THEMSELVES "basically alesbian" or some similar iteration that emphasized the importance/meaning of THEIR identity WITHOUT commenting on my own) while Wifey gets treated like "basically a man" because of how race, gender, and sexuality intersect for her. The experience of being told I am excempt from certain realities not based on ACTUAL lack of the experience but based on a feeling of ownership people believe they have over how those experiences may manifest in the world, like when someone says "well trans men aren't oppressed anymore" so I shouldn't take up space in women's communities, men's communities, OR trans-general communities. Or like when someone told wifey that gay men haven't been oppressed since same sex marriage.

Like A) you're simply fucking wrong, and B) even if you were RIGHT, I'm NOT a trans man and my wife ISN'T a gay man. So why would that mean anything about us?

Part of what we both noticed is that the function of "rounding to the nearest dick" is usually about silencing or side-lining someone. WHO exactly is relational and context dependent, but essentially it boils down to "I need one of us to be explicitly less empowered than the other of us to feel safe navigating our interaction"

Sometimes it's preferrable to BE the disempowered (e.g. justification of horizontal hostility) and others to be the disempowerING (e.g. gatekeeping access to socio-economic resources) but in either case, we explicitly see gender wielded asymmetrically and selectively to create and redirect power. Not as something intrinsic to a person or within their control. And I think it's interesting as a trans person to experience gender explicitly as power even when, for me, that's never what it's been. It's interesting to see how people engage with that power when THEY don't usually experience it that way.

Anyway, rounding to the nearest dick is something I think we should all avoid, in part because maybe we should stop focusing in so much on people's gender and sexuality having ANYTHING intrinsic/inherent to them, as opposed to a layer of context within the wholeness of their lives

[justquicksshot]

Haha, maybe I'm a little late for Pride month, but I want to tell you something that has made me think lately.

Many people in the community consider Judy Garland a queer icon, myself included, I have found a safe space in who she was as a person and in her life story, among other celebrities who existed under that title, such as Julie Andrews, who gave us an impeccable presentation in Victor/Victoria, opening the way a little more to portray queer narrative in cinema. What I'm getting at, I'm so surprised that Dean and Jerry are not another of those icons by themselves, I understand that pseudo campaign that there was to "clean" Dean's image after his death, locking him in that box of a heterosexual family man , but it doesn't enter in my head the fact that, despite having an infinite number of true fans, this duo does not have more weight within the historical vindication of the community. Especially Jerry, there's my other point. The propaganda about Jerry's image was not as strict as Dean's, it never was, In some way or another his genius allowed him to flow within the parameters in Hollywood, as he could go from a visibly gay man (or queer in that case, never openly stated, but notoriously conceived as such) to a whole womanizer, he was that versatile, but he always maintained that spark that indicated to us that perhaps, he could go beyond, so I consider Jerry a queer icon, to whom we should give more presence, to him and Dean of course (because obviously their clear love story is to die for!! more people should research it because it is to melt in love) , during pride month.

(Pretty photo so that you can stay and read my chatter )

[frogoru]

it fills me with so much genuine anguish that straight christians who chastise queer people within the faith will never truly understand the effect that their disapproval has or how disheartening it is to hear that kinda thing from so many people you respect. i hate that there's such a lack of empathy when it comes to this since any type of support towards lgbtq people within christianity is seen as encouraging sin. i've rambled about this before already sooo many times, but it's still so prevalent in my mind at times!!

i just hate the fact that since they've never experienced it before, it's so easy for a lot of straight christians to accept same-sex love as some wicked perversion. i hate how sexualized it is in the eyes of the majority. obviously a lot of sex-related things like kink culture and all that stuff are important to queer history and you can't ignore that, but christians act as if that encompasses the entirety of the queer community 24/7 and use it as an excuse to treat everyone like they're horny degenerates fiending at the thought of getting close to kids because of gay indoctrination bs.

it's so frustrating to see straight romance treated as the pure option in contrast to how gay relationships are portrayed. love between two people of the same gender isn't sinful or corrupted or an abomination, and it's so tiring to see people villainize it!! it makes me so irked when they directly bring up jesus in their arguments against it too because i can guarantee you christ wouldn't act the same as all of the people who tear down those they find weird and different just for loving who they love. seeing queer religious people find community with each other and try to involve themselves in religious spaces only to be insulted and pushed away by the "normal" people irritates me to no end and OH MY GOD

the normal thing... not even just queer people for this one, i hate how so many individuals that claim to be followers of christ belittle others they think are weird when the bible literally shows that everyone is of equal value in the eyes of god like do you guys even read your own scripture why are you putting others down for not fitting the norm THAT'S NOT CHRIST-LIKE AT ALLLLLL there's so much hypocrisy and corruption within christianity and the church but people are too blind to see it or do anything about it and agghh!!!!!!!

[velvetvexations]

Okay offering a bit of an alternative perspective, let me establish rn im not a fan of tme/tma either 👍

So i think it gets lost on people that tme/tma was coined SPECIFICALLY to describe intracommunity dynamics, like cis people were simply. Not factored into the coining of the terms, or the topics it was intended to discuss.

Honestly, i think the idea that transfeminine people being oft excluded from integrated community with transmasc individuals is grounded in reality, but it absolutely requires intersectionality for it to be legitimized and elaborated on in a meaningful way. Which, well, transradfems dont like intersectionality very much at all.

And speaking as a nonwhite perisex afab person. The trans women and fems who get excluded from trans men and masc circles are excluded for the same reasons poc trans men/mascs are excluded from those spaces. And you know the people i see doing much of the excluding, whether they declare themselves allies to transfems or not, are middle to upper class white transmascs. Speaking from personal experience, there does seem to be a demographic implicitly ignorant of the transfems they are in community with, and a lot of it stems from what i observe as a sort of inability or unwillingness to reject the politics of the communities they were raised in (lots of liberalism and cultural feminism). They sort of unconsciously reinforce socialization segregated by gender.

It’s a reproduction of a general pattern of thinking you see with cis gay people, who also tend to be white: i cant be that bigoted because im x. Obviously, this is also an issue with white transfems, but not in the same ways as they are with transmascs, and i think anyone who sweeps this issue under the rug are being dishonest with themselves. But my point stands that, within the demographic, certain groups of transmascs can be afforded a specific form of privilege, not because they *are* transmasc, but because theyre *not transfem*. Because at its core, that is privilege— not being subject to certain types of treatment, or being less prone to certain conditions, on the basis of not possessing socially marked traits you dont have control over.

Transradfem discourse fails in that it cant decide whether it truly wants to be about intracommunity discussion or not. Whether it treats transmisogyny as a grand or local narrative depends entirely on what’s convenient to argue a specific point. The only thing consistent about their worldview is that transfems are at the bottom, dehumanized, abused, and cast aside always, with no room for any nuance, because to acknowledge situations in which such totalizing logic fails can only ever be an invalidation of their trauma.

And perhaps the most important thing that should be kept in mind when talking about these things is that other trans people are hardly ever the enemy. Trans people with differing viewpoints on intracommunity relations are not the same as sellouts like blaire white or brianna wu who do the “fuck you got mine” shit. This goes for the transradfems who constantly talk down to “transandrobros”, but it also applies to some of us in that we cant let a vocal minority sway our perceptions of the majority. Most transfems dont give two craps about this.

I do not view "not being a transfem" as a privilege for other trans people, regardless of any nuance or moderation one may take that view with. You may not be subject to some extremely specific behaviors, but to call it "privilege" when one faces oppression on that same axis is highly misleading at best. Exclusion of transfems by transmascs is not worse or more pervasive of an issue than the reverse.

I'm also not a fan of how often intercommunity discourse gets boiled down to The Whites Are At It Again, especially because transradfems are often saying that about transandrophobia believers. Plenty of white transmascs are also excluded simply for their masculinity and to say all (including presumably white) transfems are treated like PoC trans men is, I feel, very dismissive and inaccurate.

[mrs-monaghan]

Hi, it's KY here :)

How is everyone feeling about the Taennie news? Knetz have fully accepted the truth and moved on, I suggest I-fans need to do the same. (Jennie is known for having dating news come out regularly, so it's not a big deal for BP fans. For Armys, the sane ones, we've known for a while now haven't we? It's not a shock anymore.)

I read the comments on my previous ask and don't worry! I will not be sharing anything sensitive whatsoever. I find it funny when other shippers say things like "How is it possible that K-fans can keep things to themselves?" I don't think I've seen anyone else address this yet so let me tell you why.

K-Jikookers are mostly queer. Yes, you read that right. Unlike other shippers, who are straight women that self-insert as one of the members (like they do with TK) we support them as a couple. This means that we don't want to date either of them, and we don't self-imagine as their partner - we know that they're unavailable because they're exclusive to each other. You get me? And we know first hand how terrible it is to be queer in a conservative society. There are actually very few real romantic shippers in Korea, (again, KM is the only romantic ship that has a substantial fanbase) simply because it is so hard to accept two men dating. This is why you will see K-Jikookers on Twitter all being close friends/meeting up in person, because they are kindred spirits. I think it might be hard for westerners to really understand. How do I emphasize this more? The older generation in Korea, anyone older than 30+, is deeply homophobic, to the point where they see anything LGBT as western influence and pervasion. Being American, I know it's hard to grasp that level of homophobia - it's not hate comments about your sexuality or people refusing to sell you a cake for a gay wedding. It's social death, rejection, parents disowning their children, getting fired from your job. I'm not kidding. Do you think us, as queer fans who love and support KM, will willingly out them?

We would never, ever, ever do that, because we know the repercussions. Some Jikookers like to fantasize about their coming out, and I want you to understand: the K-side is terrified of that day. Yes, we all think it will happen in due time, but we are very very scared. You think the hate that JM is getting now is bad? You think people sending food to JK's apartment is bad? Nope. You haven't seen anything yet. You understand what I mean, right? Their coming out will not be a cute post. It will be a carefully orchestrated move complete with a legal and PR team. If/when they are out, their lives will be in immediate danger. I truly believe they will leave the country for a bit, maybe even months, maybe a year. There will not be any public sightings, fan meets, concerts. KM know this very well too. I'm sure there's already a plan in place for it.

And anyone searching for KM evidence on K-Jikookers social media, I would say don't bother. It's almost impossible. The white day photo leak was a massive mistake, and I know exactly who leaked it because they were removed from all group chats immediately. K-Jikookers were very very angry with them (and also cussing out foreigners...please, we all need to keep our mouths shut and keep stuff within our own circles.)

-KY

KY has spoken. We appreciate your services and await your next drop in.

I too, the Jikookers that I know, I have never seen them self insert themselves. Those are y/n idiots who do this shit. Not even in private spaces do I see this happening. We support them as a couple, despite how hot we may find them. We understand and believe they only have eyes for eo.

We appreciate the commercial break KY. Now back to the headline

TAENNIE IS REAL!!!!!

[grendel-menz]

i already liked caravan and i started listening to (and have almost finished) girl in space after seeing your fanart do you perhaps have any....other podcasts you might recommend .... (also i love your art)

Aaa thank you!! Also yes, I do! Podcasts are the main things I’m into honestly :,D!

Mirrors: Three women throughout three centuries of time find themselves haunted by ghost. A story about reaching to your family through time to help them live a beautiful life. Sci-Fi, anti capitalism, reality bending, family love.

Alice Isn't Dead: A lesbian trucker drives across the US in search of her wife who she thought was dead. It's a poetic horror about anxiety and distance and state violence. One of my favorites, if you're only ever going to listen to one podcast listen to this one. Horror, grief, making pizza with your wife and trying to forget what she's done to you.

Ars Paradoxica: A genius female physicist creates a time machine and changes the history of the cold war. Scifi. Very clever. The nightmare of war and its effects.

MABEL: a nurse caring for a dying old woman in a strange house. The nurse keeps trying to contact the old woman's missing granddaughter as the old woman becomes worse. CORE LESBIAN PODCAST. Fairy horror. Love that devours.

Limetown: A town built for a small number of scientists suffers a strange but unknown catastrophe. An investigative reporter searches for answers as to why limetown destroyed itself and what exactly was happening there. female narrator. Conspiracy horror. weird weird science.

Unwell: lesbian gig worker visits her small hometown after years away to help out her mother who has spiraling health. Cozy southern gothic horror. gay, ghosts, general creepiness.

Within the Wires: Lesbian podcast about an alternative history after a war where culture and family has been destroyed for humanity's ‘safety’. very unique approach to story telling. every season is a different theme with a different narrator. Scary governments, forbidden love, lots of talk about art.

Old Gods of Appalachia: As a rural person this one is very dear to my heart. It’s a southern gothic horror, but the horror element isn’t just focused on the nightmare monsters alone but the destruction and poverty brought to the Appalachias by companies. Very well researched podcast that tells stories of sex workers and minorities.

The White Vault: A collection of recordings and documents going over strange tragedies and occurrences in cold places. It’s a language rich horror with a complicated story. Snow storms, scientists, people in the wrong places at the wrong times.

That’s all I can think of for now! I have a really soft spot in my heart for women and horror so there’s a lot of that on here :,0.

Here’s some old posters I made as well!

[nothorses]

As someone who doesn’t fall within the LGBT part of the acronym I’m still more uncomfortable with queer as the umbrella because it feels like the last progressively acceptable way to be exclusionary. Obvs plenty of folks still judge whether ppl are gay/trans enough. But doing that is at least explicitly not acceptable in the spaces I wanna be in. Whereas it’s accepted and sometimes encouraged to criticize or even exclude ppl for not being queer enough (in theory a political call, in practice a judgement on identity and presentation). I do still use queer to signal correctly, but it does not sit well for that reason. Wish there was a third option w/no political history, but I know we’d just do this to whatever new term we came up with too

I mean, I think "I know we’d just do this to whatever new term we came up with too" kind of hits the nail on the head here.

This isn't something that happens because of the word, it's something that happens because of the people. The word itself is not inherently exclusive; in fact, it's explicitly all-inclusive. It's for anyone who falls outside of the relevant societal expectations, by definition, and there is no list or any further defining or qualifying that needs to be done.

The issue with "LGBT", and any variation thereof, is that it's a list. It starts with the letters people consider most important to start with (hence, "GL" becoming "LG"). Even if it didn't, it requires that we name every single kind of person who's welcome, individually, which inevitably leaves people out- or tells them that they aren't welcome on the terms of their more "niche" identities, but rather only if they happen to have a more visible and accepted one alongside it. (See: "straight asexuals aren't LGBT")

People can still act exclusionary regardless of word choice, but if the words they're using do not themselves reinforce or encourage that way of thinking and behaving, it's kind of ridiculous to pin the blame for that on the words. People are going to do that with any word we use- at some point we have to decide whether the fight should be in finding a new word each time they do it, or in getting them to stop behaving that way in the first place.

Also... I'm sorry you've experienced this, and I think it needs to be addressed. But speaking personally, that experience isn't universal. When folks have gatekept who "counts", in my personal experience, they've overwhelmingly been using "LGBT" (or just "LGB"). If they use "queer" at all, it's interchangeable with that and other terms. Again, not to say that your experience doesn't matter- it does- but so do other people's.

You don't need to use "queer" for yourself if you don't want to. You also don't need to use "LGBT" or any variation. But we're not talking about personal identification, either; this is about which word is most practically useful and effective in achieving our goals of maximum inclusivity and clarity.

[mazzystar24]

I’m respectfully about to lose my mind at some of the fandom rn with the way buddie shippers are being treated… It’s like no one understands the whole point of shipping a couple is to want them to be together, so duh if something happens that could potentially lead to that pairing they’re going to get excited and theorize? Yes it’s absolutely important for Buck to explore his sexuality outside of buddie but the way people are trying to say that buddie shippers are homophobic for wanting endgame buddie….. when buddie is literally a queer ship? it doesn’t make any sense to me as a queer person myself because it’s like- y’all do realize that buck dating eddie would in fact mean that he is still bisexual, and that people have wanted thst for years, so A) why are we shocked and appalled at buddie shippers for being happy that they are one step closer to endgame buddie, B) why are we calling people homophobic or biphobic when they are quite literally shipping two men together, C) why are we all acting as if buddie endgame hasn’t been simmering just under the surface for YEARS and that if they were going to give us buddie, then thag means buck and eddie would both have to come oit as queer…

I’ve seen so many prominent blogs in the community who have made posts like “buck’s bisexuality has nothing to do with buddie and you are a horrible human for even insinuating that” and so many people are agreeing??? And not to mention the fact that now these same people are trying to villainize and trash on Eddie when in all honesty Buck’s behavior in 7x04 was NOT okay- physically harming someone because they’re not giving you attention is never okay (and i’m saying this as someone whi ADORES Buck, he still needs to be held accountable.)

It just reads very icky to me that so many people are screaming “bi pride” but then spewing all of this vitriol over a ship that would fit within Buck’s bisexuality…

It worries me that the writers are going to see this negativity from people and they’re going to just completely back-burner Eddie’s character in favor of Buck and it disappoints me because even outside of buddie, a major tv show portraying a repressed gay poc with religious and family trauma would be EQUALLY as powerful as Bi Buck is……

but i guess that’s just people only caring about the queer storylines when it’s about a white man since these are also the people acting like Hen and Karen or Michael and David haven’t been there the whole time

but that’s just me i guess….

I’m bullet pointing not to be curt by the way just because I prefer addressing part by part🫶

1. Agreed like this fandom was relatively peaceful then BAM it fully shifted overnight like in the words of Taylor swift THIS IS WHY WE CANT HAVE NICE THINGS

2. Yesss exactly like I’m very much a dont yuck someone else’s yum type of person so like even ships I don’t like I’ll be like okay respect 🫡 enjoy your fandom space love that for you AS LONG AS THEYRE RESPECTFUL TOO and I’m not gonna lie to you I see the primary source of negativity and stuff in the fandom be people who legit never watched anything other than the bucktommy related content (which I kinda have a whole other rant about but I don’t wanna give you miles and miles to read in one ask)

3. Yes to that 100% - buddie is a queer ship the cognitive dissonance it takes to call someone homophobic for shipping them is honestly fascinating atp, Buck is bi canonically now and y’all do realise that who he’s with or if he’s single even doesn’t take away from that right??? Like the rep is THERE and will always be THERE

4. You worded it a bit weird but I got what you meant (I hope) so anyone who didn’t may require a little clarification, the sentiment of bucks bisexuality being separate from buddie I think is 1000% correct and I agree wholeheartedly that a persons sexuality and their journey shouldn’t be just about their love interests but about themselves as a person, the issue people are taking is that 1. The people saying this are saying it on every buddie post even when the same blogs posting it have 177283 posts talking about buck as an individual and as a bisexual man outside of buddie and bucktommy, so it’s sort of become a weaponised statement if that makes sense 2. The buddie shippers are the ones who have been advocating so hard for the show to give us canon bi buck like that’s just fact no one can deny so to the og fans who’ve been here for YEARS (I’ve only started like 2023 ish so I’m not counting myself there) this must be such a total slap in the face to be receiving so much hate now

5. Oh yeah the Eddie bashers can personally come fight me

6. If I’m 100% honest I choose to interpret the basketball injury as being mostly accidental like I think he got too into it and forgot himself and his own force for a second rather than intentionally hurt Eddie, like it so happens in sports, I think it’s like just the after guilt that made him question himself and his motives, idk that may just be me denying canon because it just felt too out of character for me to believe

7. I think the fake bi pride stuff also irks me BAD like some of these people are looking for very surface level superficial representation and if you don’t push for more and more substantial and meaningful representation then you’re gonna get constant variations of the same exact thing and these are also the same people ignoring every other queer character in 911 which is just🙃

8. Idk how much the writers take fandom into account but I constantly say like if they were to listen to fandom they’d go the route they know people wanted for years

9. YES about Eddie’s character like I made a whole post about gay and comphet Eddie and how meaningful it would be because it’s just so so unique and unprecedented

10.HAHSKDK THE CROSSED OUT PART IS WHAT I JUST SAID BUT I DIDNT READ IT GAJSKDKFM

[essayofthoughts]

On wastes of time

There's this recurring thing where people can't tell me what's so cool or important about this show they want me to watch or book they want me to read or podcast they want me to listen to and I know summarising is a skill, but it's also really important if you want to get people into things.

Because currently? Currently what we have drives me nuts. We get "Oh, it's gay!" or some obfuscating description that tells us nothing, or "it's so good i promise" and that isn't enough!

Okay, it's gay. I can go to AO3 for queer fic, I have queer books I know are good, podcasts, shows, etc.. I've been rereading a series where most of the main cast are from a non-human culture where queerness is normal and gender roles are flipped around. Tell me why I should care about this one. Gay is not a genre - is it horror, mystery, romance, fantasy, sci-fi? Is the queerness the whole plot or is it incidental? (Because, and I'll be honest, if the queerness is the whole plot, I will not be interested - some may! But not me.)

"read about this perfectly normal thing!" - well, obviously there's something not normal about it or else you wouldn't be writing about it. Is it an SCP kind of obsessively Normal thing in a way that's eerie and unnerving? A horror story? That could be cool. Is the weird coming from people investigating it, or around it? Does something strange happen to it? Is the thing entirely normal but it's just the setting and the story is about people around it or involved in it? I don't fucking know. You haven't told me.

Okay, so it's good. It makes you yell and feel emotions. What emotions. Why? What invokes the emotions? Why do you enjoy it? What bits stood out, what made it interesting to you? What might draw someone else in?

Back when everyone went feral over the Locked Tomb, I didn't get it. Goth Space Lesbians, okay. That's a cool art piece, maybe a stained glass window, but it's not a story.

You know what got me to read it? A post talking about the swimming pool confession.

That? That cut to the heart of messy interpersonal dynamics that indicated a lot of tension between the characters, a lot of nuance to the dynamics and things which, done right, I could find compelling. It showed history, it showed thought, it showed messy, flawed characters who still had morals and guilt and lines even they wouldn't cross within their rivalry, it showed a trust within their rivalry that they knew where they stood with each other even if that was at knifepoint. It made me curious.

I ultimately didn't really care for Locked Tomb, but that's fine. Sometimes you bounce off something, and it just wasn't my kind of jam. But that one post? That gave me a glimpse. That made me curious enough to try.

But a lot of summaries and attempts to make people start something new I've seen lately? Skip that step. Skip making people curious. Just say "HEY LOOK AT THIS" without ever giving a reason. And I get you may want to avoid spoilers, or go in blind, or avoid giving the plot away but...

What counts as spoilers? How blind should you go in? And does this give away the whole plot, or just that there is one? The kind of genre and tropes that might be in play?

If you tell people nothing, then you've given them a blank wall. It could be thin as paper - easy to step through and see what's on the other side, but if it looks like a blank wall, why would they bother? You have to provide a doorway - something they can look through, and catch a glimpse of what's on the other side. Something that makes them want to step through and see more.

You want people curious. You want people interested. You need to answer just enough questions to make them want to discover more for themselves.

If you want me to spend my time reading/watching/listening to something, then I have to know it's worth my time.