#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.

[featureenvyproductions]

here’s a bird’s eye view of my comic Eyan Eternal

For people who don't know what it is. Bc I think some of you might find it's right up your alley. Well this is an updated one anyway. I do actually have a volume of this out in print right now, but the low def, basic version is online and complete, and tbh, I just want people to read it. I took almost two years to complete this and quite literally poured every waking moment (after work and when I wasn’t fixing stuff in my house) into this to try and finish it.

Ahem

Here is one of these at a glance things! 

If that’s enough to intrigue you, take a look at my chapter masterpost which has convenient links to every chapter post so you don’t have to go figuring out where they are and what order they go in!: https://www.tumblr.com/featureenvyproductions/717516139934154752/eyan-eternal-tumblr-chapter-masterpost?source=share

If you like it and want to support me you can also buy a copy of the first print volume, which collects chapters 1-5 and has a smidge of bonus content (only available in the US right now, but that’s not going to be forever, and I’m working on an e-book as well): https://www.etsy.com/FeatureEnvy/listing/1447399615/eyan-eternal?utm_source=Copy&utm_medium=ListingManager&utm_campaign=Share&utm_term=so.lmsm&share_time=1683565699335

And now here is a more detailed break down if you need more info than that...

*Jonathan Frakes asks you things meme voice* have you ever wondered what you’d find if you REALLY lived forever?

Well, meet Eyan, an immortal vampire.

He’s slowly finding out the answer to that question...

...And it appears to be unbearable isolation.

Eons into the distant future, when most stars have faded in the night sky and the cosmic event horizon has confined any remaining beings to an isolated pocket of the universe, Eyan roams interstellar space in a repurposed generation ship in search of anything that could be considered alive/sentient in the way he is.

So far, he’s out of luck.

That is until he runs into an unexpected former rival on a remote planet - Zero, a sentient android he never expected to be the only other person left alive.

Well. That is, if either of them can really be considered “alive”. What does that mean anyway, when the humans who defined what it means to be alive are all gone?

This is something they’ll have to explore and define for themselves as they attempt to set aside their myriad of differences and try to work together on one of the few ways left to escape the dark fate of ultimate isolation - The Grand Encoder, a machine that can upload minds to a special medium - if it even works for them anyway. In the process, they slowly come to accept that maybe they’d had each other all wrong and weren’t seeing the bigger picture.

You may not find any action-packed Star Wars like escapades here in this sci fi drama. You also won’t find ponderings about the origins of vampires or what gave rise to robot sentience - It’s integral to the plot that these things just ARE. But you will find a thoughtful exploration of identity and how it can cause us to define ourselves and relate to (or abandon) each other depending on the framework within which we are doing that exploration and within which we are compelled to exist. It asks the question, what if the frameworks within which we defined our existence and purpose no LONGER existed...Where would we go from there?

And as two immortal guys who are the only folks left in the universe (as far as they know), Eyan and Zero are just the right people to mull over that.

There is both textual and allegorical queerness in this story - both main characters should be considered gay men, even if it’s The Future TM and terms/exact scopes of identities may not be EXACTLY 1-1 with today’s...But I want to be perfectly clear that it was my intent to make them gay because I wanted to see more gay guys in sci fi and I don’t want anyone erasing that. As for the allegorical stuff - I myself am a trans gay man in my late 30s, so this act of re-exploring and re-framing myself and evaluating how and why queer folks interact with each other the way we do is something I’m very familiar with, and I feel like other folks might relate. (I also peppered in some neurodivergent-person-in-a-neurotypical-world moods tbh.)

Of course it’s not all serious. I do have a bit of fun with some old school vampire tropes, tossing Eyan around and putting him in Situations.

Anyway if this all sounds interesting to you, take a look at my tag and site (above)! I’d appreciate it! I also like to hear from people and see if there’s anything about it you related to! :)

I also do everything. Every last monotonous step (well, aside from literally loading up a printing press to churn out volumes lol - BUT REST ASSURED IF I HAD $10K TO PISS INTO THE WIND I WOULD DO THAT TOO). So if there’s ANYTHING you want to know about my process, I’m happy to tell you so please ask, especially if you’re like trying to get started on your own comic or trying to go to print :) 

Edit before I go ahead and blaze this: I want to say, to be honest, the creation of comic was initially motivated almost entirely by the isolation/loneliness I’ve felt in my life. It’s not as bad as some folks’ and I know that, but it is a really prevalent thread throughout my life and sometimes is almost unbearable, and my comic began as an exploration of that loneliness, as well as a narrative exercise to try and express the depth of it at its worst point. I’m putting this out here because ultimately I don’t know...maybe someone will catch my drift and understand the feeling I’m trying to illustrate, and maybe they’ll want to see the plot that came of those feelings. I am not above the need to feel seen lol, especially if other people out there feel like they can resonate with this experience as well.

[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."

[yonpote]

I feel like people are conflating continuing the joke with invading their privacy… like no one is stalking them or sneaking pictures or bothering their friends and family asking about them we’re just continuing their joke that they set up within our fandom space. Which is exactly as we should be doing imo

yeah exactly. like i think when outsiders dont understand that we are in on the bit that makes some sense, but when it's PHANNIES especially phannies who joined post coming out???? it seems strange.

oh i didnt really explain why this kinda behavior is homophobic as well. (disclaimer: me calling an action homophobic is not the same as me calling an individual homophobic.) a lot of ppl use pj and sophie as a direct comparison straight couple example. pj has only directly called sophie his girlfriend once, and it was in the context reading someone's poorly written article about him lmao. otherwise, its known that they met in uni, have lived together since then, have worked on nearly every kickthepj project together, and generally their on screen energy is really sweet and funny. they also have a cat together and call themselves a family. it's not a stretch to say they're together in the slightest. in fact, it is just natural to assume so.

BUT when dnp who are now publicly out, have been very open about how much they mean to each other, have lived together since dan was in uni, have worked on nearly every project together (even in solo projects the other would help out behind the scenes), have a clear on camera chemistry together, had co-parented a fish, a pigeon, and several houseplants and possibly plan to get a dog or other pet in the future... suddenly it's wrong to assume anything.

i understand the fear that may come from having been in the phandom since when they were closeted and it was much harder to talk about it without seeming like youre aligned with stalkers or ppl who harassed their families or dnp themselves to reveal more information, but thats not the case anymore, and ESPECIALLY if you discovered them post-gay, it's such a flimsy argument to say anyone is breaching privacy in that way.

now there are still some like unspoken basic decency and boundary rules. you probably shouldnt be @'ing them in your smutfics or even your pretty innocent theories about them being super duper in gay love. dnp themselves understand that if they aren't being @ tagged in something, it's probably not meant for them to see, and even acknowledged that in the twitter memes video. but us talking about it in our own spaces, especially on tumblr where they arent on as much but also on twitter BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEYRE NOT MEANT TO SEE IT, is not the same as being like hey @/danielhowell @/amazingphil do you fuck nasty i gotta know if you fuck nasty. (but even if i were to do that, i feel like its very clearly a joke lmao)

so like just dont worry about it, if you still personally dont like seeing ppl talk abt this stuff regardless, you can mute and block people, you can blacklist tags, you can curate your own experience to fit your needs and you dont need to harass other people into suiting your needs.

[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!!!!!

[josendlessmonolouge]

hey so I just binged your head cannons and how does it feel to be right all the time? I was wondering what you would think about body/weight insecurities with the underworld kids? Like Hazel grew up in the 30s when black girls were the opposite of the beauty standard and I imagine her having complicated feelings about her appearance caused by never feeling attractive growing up. And going into the legion they do intense exercises so she probably put on a bunch of muscle weight after the first few months, and on a short girl like her that can look pretty stocky (totally not projecting rn). So she’s prob never thought about herself as very feminine or beautiful. Do think dating Frank and being desired would help her recover from that and gain confidence?

And with Nico he’s always been very skinny especially after the jar incident. I feel like people around camp would say insensitive things about him looking skeletal or ghastly as a joke but he would actually be very hurt by it. Like internalized homophobia would already make him feel unmasculine and comments like those would be like salt in the wound. Also his eating habits described in the book are definitely disordered in some way.

sorry this ended up way longer than I planned but would love to hear your opinion

Omg thank you for the ask and the spam likes I’m happy you enjoy my head-canons :>> So first Hazel;

I struggle a lot with body dysmorphia myself. The Hazel idea is something I hadn’t really thought about much but now that you put it in my head. I think definitely makes sense and I love it. I think her and Frank probably both have a lot of issues with their physical appearances and how they’ve changed within the events of the books and starting off with bad self image. Within or having to do with the events of the book being Him losing a bunch of weight and gaining muscle then putting weight back on after the blessing of mars, and her like you said putting on more muscle.

my BD/ED was actually the down fall of my first relationship so I don’t think just feeling desired could really fix it , however I think that being with frank would probably improve her self image. I think Frank is probably pretty body neutral or working hard at being body neutral for himself and encourages her to do the same. I do think that his adoration of her would probably also help some. He’s a wonderful hype man and a blushing mess whenever she gets dressed up cute so she can’t help but feel a little better about herself. I think they’re both probably working on themselves and building each other up when it comes to body image.

Nico ooh I’ve got a lot of feelings on him bc I’ve chatted with my friends about it and you said exactly what I’ve been saying about how it probably makes him feel emasculated since he’s a young gay man who’s constantly surrounded by these ultra masculine friends and probably feels like less than in some ways. I feel for some reason that he has some arfid symptoms because most modern foods are just different than he used to and just he can’t will himself to eat most things. He also just gives the energy off even when he was in the 40s he was pretty picky since his family was wealthy. (Idk that he canonically bought McDonald’s to raise the dead that kid cries if he tries to eat a French fry) so it’s extremely hard for him to gain the weight back after the jar incident. I also think He knows he should reasonable work at gaining weight but he also just wants to take up as little space as possible literally and figuratively so it’s a constant mental bottle of “I’m sick and getting sicker, will is worried about me I need to eat, but also food is icky and I really don’t want to see the number on the scale go up even though I know I’ll look and feel better”

I could go on for a long while about this actually lol

[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!

[rebukerobot]

What about doggirl tops tho

couple of tacks we can take this question from

1

top =/= dom. i know we as tumblr users have diluted the meanings, but there is actual queer history on the differences between top/bottom (invented by gay men as a minced version of "the one doin' the penetrating and the one gettin' penetrated") and dom/sub (invented by BDSM people because it's a BDSM concept). a service top doggirl is still subbing. my point applies to service tops just as much. we'll tackle domme bottom doggirls and domme top doggirls in a second.

2

let's talk about dogwomen vs doggirls. doggirls often presuppose a sort of neoteny which is very common in transfem spaces. so many transfems call themselves trans girls rather than trans women -- we don't call cis women girls in any situation aside from youth and casual-context-setting (note the casualness of the phrase "the girls in HR are coming to fire me"). trans men will often actually only use tboy in sexual or abbreviated contexts, and trans boy doesn't get thrown around quite nearly as much as trans girl.

the primary thrust of the tgirl neoteny angle is far beyond the scope of this, but suffice to say that neoteny is a de-agentive condition. children as culturally constructed are not intended to have any actual volition that isn't a live wire for adult sensibilities. "girl dinner" is distinct from "woman dinner". "doggirl" is distinct from "dogwoman".

if you are a volitional actor within a sexual encounter and you have a dog thing (therian, kink, or personal aesthetic, or whatever) you may actually be a dogwoman. some classic dogwomen are: isabelle from animal crossing! giovanna from guilty gear strive! that one woman from altered beast! john wick!

dogwomen inherit from a pre-neoteny furry era tradition where furries and therians mostly operated in a wild-animals-only space, with the exception of cats, which are pretty much wild animals anyhow. you had a lot of wolfgirls, and wolfwomen, and coyotegirls, and the such. dogs are neotenic wolves. they presuppose neoteny, they presuppose an instrumentality to anothers' volition. to double-neotenize, to posit yourself as a doggirl, you are signaling an absolute loss of agency. if you have the volition to dominate, you aren't a doggirl. you are a dogwoman or a wolfgirl.

dogwomen have lost the human neoteny of their deal. they are volitionally people -- they have jobs and lives and desires and sapient hand-having-person stuff. the conflict with the domesticated neotenic canine is exciting; are they servile in a kyriarchial way? how does that intersect with their femininity and their independence? how do they square the contradiction of their neotenic animal and their volitional human? is the oppression as transposed into a sexual scenario erotic? (yes.) is the inversion of that oppression erotic? (YES!)

wolfgirls are precisely the opposite; in retaining their neotenic humanity, they have transcended the infinite avolitionality of domesticated dogs and become the Volitional Predatory Animal. this breeds another sort of tension; the cutesy eternal-youthfulness of the young girl as prescribed by our culture against the violent uncontrollable loyal pack animal fantasy of a wolf. awooing at the moon and such. the conflict exists in the opposite manner. the primary volitional thrust of this eros is in the dog part, the rut, the unrestrainability. if a wolfgirl bottoms, it's a subversion of their wolfitude, a transgression upon their freedom. wolfgirls are kind of a werewolf fiction cultural idea, and like werewolves, their ferality defines their eroticism.

as such, dogwomen and wolfgirls are not really what i'm talking about when i talk about doggirls. they have the existence of a volitional gradient. they have some part of their identity that makes sex with d/s mechanics actually meaningful.

3

let's do some case studies.

when it comes to domme "doggirls", i envision two specific types:

"Argh... I can't control myself... I'm in heat... I'm going to eat you with my teeth... I'm like a pitbull and you're like a two year old..."

this is not quite domming, actually; this is a sort of service top. to appeal to instinct that overrides volition implies a submission to a base counter-cultural hedonist nature; the bottom, actually, is the one with the agency in this situation. while the act is being done TO the bottom, they're the ones who in the fantasy retain the cogency and volition to scream and plead.

it is hot, but it's still an abdication of volition in the act. the act of relinquishing control, in this case, is the important part, and so we must judge by the gradient of volition. i posit the following:

if the top is cognizant and volitional in nature -- if it's a personality shift into a sex-crazed animal, -- i'm gonna say this is a wolfgirl sort of deal. if this is your deal and you think you're a doggirl, i'm sorry, you're a wolfgirl. call yourself a feral doggirl if you want. whatever.

if the top is entirely in the fantasy of being a slave to their instincts, to the extent that the feeling exists prior, this is doggirlish stuff and while it can be enjoyable, still plays to the double-neoteny. you have nothing in your heart to give, why are you acting like you gave something up?

again, we can visualize these as volitional gradients. a werewolf-esque shift from normal girl to vicious dog is a shift from volition to avolition. a doggirl humping your leg because she's in heat was never volitional, at the end of the day. if this is your primary thrust of sexuality, you might be a wolfgirl.

"I'm a powerful dog and I'm going to make you suck my knot or kill you with my knot or both. Look at my dark eyes. I'm an evil or awesome dog and I'm going to put puppies in you and I know what I'm talking about."

this is dogwoman to me. dogs don't broadcast their intention with language, they don't have a cultural construction of threat, they can't speak languages. to broadcast a sort of dangerous domme energy in the context of a woman is to be a woman. this is a kind of domination volitional culturally-contexted people can have -- the woman, non-neotenized, the dog, fetishized as the contradiction. you're getting fucked by a woman more powerful than you but also a dog, the instrumental tool of humanity? lol wowwwwwww. if this is your primary thrust of sexuality, you are a dogwoman at heart.

4

i think the actual conclusion here is that the homogenization of queer spaces through incessant FOMO-based fetish adoption and the telephone game of regurgitated queer history has made it impossible to understand the relationship one immersed in those spaces might have with doghood, girlhood, wolfhood, womanhood, etc. it also doesn't help that in these spaces nobody seems to read any feminist literature, or even transfeminist literature. rigorous self-analysis is impossible; analysis of others is seen as an attack on validity. the individual is sacred because the internet is american. i understand the snap-reaction; in a kinder world, "gender critical" would mean a critical analysis of the social archetype-control-role of gender, not an admittance of being The First Female Hitler.

to be a doggirl is to be accepted, to walk among like queer people who have doubly-neotenized themselves for each others' comfort, victims of tall poppy syndrome. do you honestly think that the hordes of doggirl transfems on the internet truly feel that way in their hearts, that they must forever remain neotenic and consumable, instrumental tools of another's pleasure? are they all age regressors forever? are they all therians? is every single one of them consigned to never take the reins of their own heart and push forward for their own sake, transmuting their will into power?

no! the kyriarchy has consigned them to be lumpenproletarian buttsluts! this is a social disease we perpetuate as a viral reservoir!

being a doggirl is a social camouflage of the heart.