#using gay as an umbrella term here obvs

[dwelt-in-a-tent]

Someone tell Dale G Renlund that his nitroglycerin opener was a big hit with the Mormon gays

[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.

[my-castles-crumbling]

hi! its incredible/intrusive tjoughts anon. honestly its nothing serious i just want advice lol.

so basically i identify as pan(tomantic) and non binary (transmasc).

basically i have this cousin who im REALLY close eith since shes the only family close to my age (we have a year differencs)

basically i do live in a very homophobic place, as i think ive said before but i think that she might be queer (bi specifically)

and here are my proofs:

1) the subtle one being, when its just the both if us watching something all she points out is how beautiful/amazing/gorgeous wtc the women look. nothing abt the guys. (not that im complaining cz women serious do slay)

i know that she also likes men because i remember watching this scene with her and one other cousin where the guy (wesrung a ehite) shirt fell into the water and was coming out (of the water).

me, personally, i was disgusted and i thiught my cousins would share the same opinions. nope. they rewatched the scene twice i think, their eyes were glued onto the screen ans they were both red.

2) the second one being, as ive mentioned before, i am a religious person qnd so is she. but we have this tradition where we go onto the roof and just talk about stuff we normally would never talk about. we basically kid of vent to each other too.

and there we've talked alot about queer people, and being a religious queer person and its clear that our views on the topic are very similar.

(i never bring up queer people bcz im scared of giving myself up, and usually people do not go around asking others abt their opinion on them. and yeah i feel like she was relieved when i explaijed that the last thing i wanted was for them to die)

niw into the veey obvious tells:

3) my cousin and i were bored so i took out markers and we decided to draw on my leg (dont ask me how we decided that that was the best thing to do.) but basically out if everything she couldve drawn, she drew the rainbkw but as a bi flag.

i saw it and when i pointed it out, she kind of looked panicked? so i just left it.

4) this one is like glaringly obvious tell. basically obv everyone knows, the tt algorithm works overtime and honestly i rarely get anything im not interested in.

so me, obv i have short hair, and when im sleeping/when im alone with other women you could easily tell that wtv is happening is not straight cis shit.

but basically i was changing so i just shed off my outer layer, underneath i was wearing this like sleeveless sweater and i had tracksuit bottoms underneath. my hair was oulled back in a half bun.

tell me why she says oh you look like thise masc lesbians in my tiktok fyp.

like FIRSTLY what are the masc lesbians doing on ur feed?? how have you watched them eniugh to know the specific terms??

basically idk if im maybe reading inti this but sometimes i genuinely feel like im going mad and i want to kind of come out ti someone irl cz i litr need someoen to see me, and recognize my efforts.

so. i just need advice, cz she knows quite alit if the terms as well, and ive noticed that homophobic people usually do not. (e.g. my brother does not know anthign other than gay and lesbian and queer cz he likes to throw them out as insukts)

but she does know, not all, but quite a few. (i only know nearky all cz for a while my obsession, idk what people call thus but basically i become obsessed with a tooic, research alot about it and then just leave it?. was like all the different types of labels and which umbrellas they fall under. so ive done alot of research on this matter which actually freaks alot of people out)

ive just realised i actually ramble alot so thankyou for making it this far lol

(also i just got hiccups wriitng this and theyre OISSING ME KFF)

Hi!

I feel like it's a pretty good assumption that your cousin is open-minded. I think it might be a good idea, next time you guys are having a rooftop conversation, to bring up queer people you know. Celebrities, mutual friends, etc. Ask her how she feels about those people. If she's cool with it, that's a good signal that you can come out.

Also think about- if you've told her other secrets, has she told other people? If not, then you can trust her with something like this.

As far as your cousin's sexuality- I'm not sure if you're reading into it. But remember, even if you come out to her, she might not return the gesture even if she IS queer. She might not be ready, and that's okay! Just continue to be a safe space for her no matter who she likes.

[zenyattasperceptrons]

link me reaction gifs that involve someone gay if you have any handy

gay actor/character/whatever

[dreamhot]

no seriously a couple years ago if I used gay as an umbrella term I’d be shot dead, this is why labels often suck in the first place because people so often arbitrarily change what label they thing is most appropriate for YOU on an almost annual basis

literally 💀 and like, obv i'm not telling other people what to do here, but it's why queer is such a useful moniker *for me personally* bc i don't have to worry about people having expectations of what my labels SHOULD mean

[upthehillask]

Hello! I just wanted to share my thoughts on fan on ships and the problems surrounding them :)

I haven't been in the hp fandom for very long (just a little over a year) but I think this would go for any fandom with ships that could be seen as problematic if you applied them to the real world rather than the fictional one.

I think a lot of people need to learn to separate fiction and reality and also fanon and canon. Most fictional works were made for us to escape reality. They were made for us to be able to take a break from dealing with real world issues. So why are people pushing these real world issues onto it, yk?(im talking about the pansmione thing here. But my view on that may be a bit botched because I am white.)

And with the fanon vs canon thing. Many people don't understand that when we ship characters or when we make them a bit (sometimes a lot) different than the actual character, we aren't going off of canon. For example, many get mad when we make a straight character gay or vice versa. But the thing is, no matter how much we twist this character into how we view them, it's not going to affect the canon story in any way. (which is why, as an lgbtq person, I see no issue with putting a gay character in a hetero relationship so long as they aren't doing it solely because they're against gays and there wasn't some sort of message about their identity tied to the character. Because that person is just having fun with a character that was made for their entertainment. And no matter how much hate you send to them because they switched it, their view of that character will not change the representation that is in the canon story- and also the fact that unless the author or artist explicitly stated that they made the character straight, then the character could still be bi or any term under that umbrella.)

Those two things sort of contradict themselves. Because on one hand we have the fact that we want to let it be shown that fanon is different from canon and that if we wanna pretend a character isn't racist then we should because who would actually want them to be. But also on the other hand, we have the fact that even if we change the problem that made the character problematic, it won't change the fact that they were in the canon story.

The world of fandom is all kind of strange and in a lot of ways toxic, but in my opinion, we should do whatever the hell we want with characters and ships (obv with some exceptions) because they exist for us to have fun with them. And if we wanna pretend this character had some character growth then we should

Sorry if any of this was confusing, I have trouble putting thoughts into words.

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts!! :)

I hear you and definitely understand what you mean and definitely agree, at least to some extent. To be honest, I have just recently replied to another ask, the most recent one before this one (link), and there I voiced the exact thoughts that I had in response to reading your message as well, so as not to be redundant, I'd say you can give it a read if you are interested in my thoughts! :) And if you feel like you have more to share, my askbox is open!!

But yes, I know exactly what you mean and I see the appeal of - as well as value in - separating reality and fiction, at least some of the time. Sometimes it takes putting our reality aside completely to be able to look at things in a fresh, new light and come up with the most unique ideas as well. It's fair to use fiction as a sort of an escape mechanism when it's something that we really need, sometimes it can provide more rest, growth, liberation and rejuvenation than anything else, when that's needed. It can be healthy! But too much escapism also has a harmful side too, one that ignored the fact that fiction DOES have the power to influence and affect our reality and real people. So it seems like the answer to the question of should fiction and reality be treated as separate or not, is not "yes" or "no." It's both. There's a lot of value in that division AND there's a lot of value in having fiction and reality in a dialogue. It only gets problematic when we start looking at things as black and white.

At the end of the day, just like I said in that previous ask I linked, the most important thing is not deny the canon as it is (and I see you agree). You want to imagine Pansy as different than she was in canon? Great, kinda same! lol BUT if you start denying and invalidating the meaning behind the things that Pansy's said in the books, that's when we're hitting a wall. Same goes for those who can't separate fanon and canon - it's okay if you prefer to just stick to canon with your interests, but if you start treating all fan content as if it was meant to be based on canon (when a lot of the time it isn't), then we're hitting a wall again because unproductive judgment and unnecessary conflict comes to the surface.

[suizhou]

i don't really vibe with the insistence we've placed on the idea that while you're "figuring yourself out" and deciding on a label for yourself any transition you might make from, say, bisexual to lesbian and vice versa, makes the pre-transitional label null and void. specifically, i mean the insistence on rhetorics like "i thought i was bi but really it was comphet and i was in denial and i am actually, actually, forreal a lesbian!" or "thought i was a lesbian for a decent chunk of my life but that was just actually internalized biphobia and complex feelings about men's roles in the patriarchy and my own complex feelings about gender and sexuality in relation to that social strata". it's never worked like that for me and if it actually does for you, whatever feels right for you goes obvs, but the 5 or so years of my life i lived as a bisexual woman i was a bisexual woman, i wasn't secretly a lesbian in denial, i lived as a woman who was attracted in some capacity to all genders, who empathized with bisexual politics and the community and lived a sexy life attracted to multiple genders. the past 4 years of my life i've lived as a lesbian and it's been a sexy, sexy life of blowing my way through women exclusively and finding the deepest love with women exclusively and that doesn't mean that the (usually gnc) men i fell for in the past were all a massive lie i was living or that i was making some massive politically controversial statement that tries to force every lesbian under the sun into the cisheterosexual obligation of having to love men or endorsing contradictory labels like "bisexual lesbian". i was bi, i loved men, it happened, i changed, i'm a lesbian now, i love women exclusively, that's who i am at the moment, but i might change again and i might feel bisexual applies more than lesbian or nothing might change and i'd be happy to love women exclusively for the rest of my life. either way! i think there's something to say about using umbrella terms like gay or even the q slur that does away with the hyperspecificity and cross-examination of your sexuality that you're forced to undergo here when you go with more specific labels, as if your sexuality and how you've experienced it is a general political statement about a community at large. i don't always agree with it or apply it to myself but it's easier than trying to dumb down and draw lines in the sand about my love life and the people i've fallen in love with and force it into some neat narrative or checkbox. it feels reductive whenever i explain this to people, where i say i'm a lesbian but i had a boyfriend or two who i loved at the time i was bi who i cannot imagine loving right now, since I'm expected to say something easily understandable like 'oh i thought i was bi but clearly i was just lying to myself haha', as if the years I lived as a bi woman as part of the bisexual community was some long-arching exercise in self-denial and now, now, i'm part of the correct community with the correct label. the idea of it is so odd to me. as if anyone spends the entirety of their life as one fixed, immutable thing.

[juiceboxboyy]

ughhhh can ppl please stop making the ugliest flags I’ve seen in my life for gay men/mlm I’m so tired. we can use the rainbow flag for us AND it still be for all lgbt ppl like cmon. yes the rainbow flag is for gay guys (obv I use the term “guy” here loosely) yes it’s for the lgbt community it’s not so confusing. like I’m not trying to shit on ppl who make alternative flags I think they’re so cool!! And I think it would be nice if one of those alternate flags caught on and got popular But like. The rainbow flag is still for us. It’s still the gay pride flag. stop using that nasty ass blue flag that’s literally just a lesbian flag recolor -_- y’all are too good for that. In a similar vain, lesbians and bi folk are allowed to refer to themselves and their attraction as “gay” it’s not the end of the world, my friends! again, gay is an umbrella term AS WELL AS a term for men/male adjacent folk who only like men, it’s that simple!

[pigeondotcom]

I mean yeah people who want to use it are obviously free to use it but it’s still a word that causes a lot of pain for a lot of people, myself included, and I’ve definitely been in spaces where I’ve been expected to be okay with the word and being labeled queer when I am definitely not okay with it. That post wasn’t really slamming people who use the word, but rather people who assume everyone is okay with being referred to as queer. Like sure there’s power in reclaiming it and wanting to be referred to as queer but only if you want to be and the truth is that its a charged word with a violent history that upsets me and I shouldn’t be expected to be okay with it because of it’s popularity within the community. It’s not really a matter of fear of the name blah blah blah but like...this word causes me anguish and I don’t like it and don’t want to use it and when people assume I’m okay with being called queer it’s not cool. 

Like I’m almost done a major in queer theory and the amount of people I’ve had class with who assume everyone is using the word and everyone wants to reclaim it and call themselves it is...upsetting. It seems like a trend to single people out who don’t like it and interrogate them about why they don’t use it like...girl... it was a slur and still is a slur and I don’t really want to reclaim it rn okay...I know you want to reclaim it but I don’t lol...

[yikesharringrove]

Quick q for your mango verse. Female alphas, do they carry?(and if they do carry, is it stigmatized?) and how does a female alpha/female omega pair produce pups? (Do they adopt?) (You mentiondd earlier that the only secondary gender to be determined by birth was a male omega, so I got curious) sorry/not sorry for making you expand this lovely universe of yours

I went in so DEEP this is all my thoughts on this universe and the gender/secondary gender politics of it.

Honestly, because this started as a drabble, I put SUCH little thought into it, lol, but as I’ve written, there have been more and more I’ve been dwelling on.

I’m gonna put it under the cut bc I talk genitals and stuff. Don’t want anyone to get uncomfy.

Here’s the Mango Masterlist, I’m gonna maybe put this somewhere in there. Maybe at the top.

So yes, how I always like to think of ABO is that male omegas have some combination of penis/vagina because I once read one where that was the case and I was like, hell yeah. It just kind of clicked into my brain.

Especially for this one, I’m not usually into mpreg unless it makes more sense for me, biologically, so like a trans person getting pregnant (which someone tagged the Mango series as trans!steve, which could TOTALLY work) or as I’ve written Steve, more on the intersex scale. I just think it’s interesting to bring this side of gender politics that very much exists into it and make it more.

HOWEVER, Steve can DEFINITELY be read as a trans man with a clit dick, so honestly, whatever you want. 

So, my original plan, when I introduced Robin, was to have her being a female alpha a kind of euphemism for her being a lesbian, and most omegas are female in this universe. My original thought was that female alphas would have a penis, but then I was asked to write about Nancy (and look me in the eyeballs and tell me that girl is NOT an alpha) so I was like, nvm and decided to scrap that, it also sets male omegas even further apart, as they are the only secondary gender to have a difference in external genitalia. I decided that when I wrote the part of them getting harassed.

So what I was thinking, was that Robin’s queerness comes in with her being attracted to other women, obvs, but also being attracted to other female alphas.

I think that with ABO, since they are these other secondary genders, there would be an even wider range of sexuality than in real life, so you could have omega women that are attracted to only alpha males, or only alpha females, or both or neither, etc, etc. Maybe a beta male that’s attracted to women, be they alpha or omega or beta. There are two different levels to sexuality alone that would be interesting to bring into play.

I think for Steve, he likes alphas. Doesn’t care male or female.

To me, for this universe, Steve is perfect for Billy. He likes the idea of omegas, but prefers males. Maybe he only dated male betas before he met Steve, so when he finds a male omega and it’s like he’s hit the Holy fucking Grail.

Nancy is an alpha that prefers betas, she likes to be more dominant, but doesn’t want someone to be completely reliant on her.

You bring up a SUPER interesting point, and I do really like the idea of. The world I've set up definitely caters more to alphas, but I think that there would be some kind of stigma against alpha women. I think a metaphor for it would be like, alpha males are the white cishet men of the world, they get away with everything and get it handed to them on a silver platter. There’s a LOT of privilege there. Alpha women are like white cishet women, they lose some of the privileges the men have, but they still have it WAY better than most.

So as I’m thinking about it, maybe because the way an alpha presents is their knot coming in, maybe when a female alpha presents, something similar happens where her clitoris enlarges. Because alpha males are rare, many alpha women date beta or alpha men, however, I think it’d be seen as kind of a pussy move by the world at large if a male alpha were to be with a female alpha.

Does any of this make sense? I honestly don’t know.

There are a lot of things I’ve thought about that I haven’t found a way of putting into the story since they are just snippets of time, but I thought it would be interesting to delve into Steve’s experience as a male omega, like maybe when he was born his parents could’ve had him undergo surgery and hormonal therapy to have him live as a female omega, as sometimes parents of intersex people do (which is something I DO NOT agree with, let people live) but they ultimately chose not to, which could then be reflected in how Steve’s mom tried to make amends after they moved to California.

This was a long tangent and didn’t answer a single thing you asked.

Female alphas carrying: I think yes, they can carry, but I think many would not want to. Part of the typical omega biology is wanting to carry pups, to nest and take care of life. I think many alpha women would choose not to have pups. They may feel the desire to reproduce, but don’t ultimately wouldn’t want to actually get pregnant. Maybe there is a well-established culture of omega surrogates. For female alphas that choose to carry, I think they would be looked at as lesser, like maybe they are with a male alpha, and she is seen as a lesser alpha for submitting to her man’s primal urge to impregnate, even though it was a decision they both made.

I think in this universe, female alphas/female omegas can’t procreate together, but as I mentioned, maybe there is a strong culture of surrogacy like many male alphas donate sperm and many female omegas are willing to act as surrogates for those that can’t procreate on their own, and having a surrogate or using a sperm donor is seen as fairly normal.

There is still a large sense of homophobia, as the stigma Billy and Steve face is largely that Steve is a guy, but that also has an air of anti-intersex or transphobia, seeing as the real rub is that he is a male omega, it’s the combination of the two that people are mostly discriminatory against. I think in terms of stigma, male alpha with a male omega is like, BAD, and then from most stigmatized to widely accepted and celebrated would be male alpha with male alpha, male beta, female alpha, female beta, female omega. 

To use an analogy from modern-day, a person may be accepting of a gay couple, but if they find out one of the people in the couple is a gay trans man, then they are transphobic and problematic about that.

Steve also is faced with transphobia and anti-intersex moments in the form of people asking him about his genitals. That is something that many trans and intersex people are harassed with and it’s disgusting, but I think that would be many people’s go-to form of harassment with him, like the guys in part 26.

As I mentioned, Robin may face discrimination from being a female alpha, being a female alpha attracted to women, but it is more the combination of being attracted to female + alpha that creates the same homophobia she would face in real life 1980s.

(I also was going to go into how transness may work in this ‘verse, since I think being under the trans umbrella would come into play with both sets of gender, and a person could be non-tertiary (? like non-binary but with 3 established gender roles) but this post is already so long if anyone wants to know my thoughts, feel free to reach out.)

I hope this kind of explained somethings, I went on long tangents without really answering your actual questions, and I kinda feel like J.K. Rowling not mentioning any of this stuff because it’s not a part of Harry’s journey, but this has been where my brain is at in terms of writing this drabble series. The more it progresses, the more I think about certain aspects of it, and I think a LOT about how gender and sexual politics would be established in this world.

As always, if I have said or done something harmful and problematic, please come and start a discussion with me, I am always willing to learn and I understand that in talking about certain things I do not experience, I can get stuff wrong and be insensitive.

[purplespacecats]

hey, so i disagree, but to situate where i stand in this godforsaken discourse: i absolutely hate the convention of tagging posts with "q slur" and am extremely concerned that a significant part of this discourse is motivated by exclusionists (and straight up terfs) who object to the radical inclusivity of queerness. so like, jsyk where i'm coming from here.

i strongly identify as queer, but contend that it's not never a slur. it depends on context. but let's look at a more obvious example: i also strongly identify as a dyke. dyke is undeniably a slur, and also undeniably an identity. a lot of wlw casually use the word dyke among ourselves as a synonym for lesbian or for sapphic. and yes, the word lesbian can definitely be used as an insult despite not being a slur. growing up, i never heard the word dyke; to say "she's a lesbian" already had enough vitriol on its own. but of course, lacking the hateful tone, the word lesbian just becomes a neutral descriptor. not so for dyke. if my cis straight neighbor told someone "my next door neighbor is a lesbian," that would be an objective statement of fact. but if he said "my next door neighbor is a dyke," YIKES. it would absolutely be a homophobic slur in that context, no matter the tone.

but the fact that dyke is a slur doesn't stop plenty of wlw from identifying as dykes. doing so is an act of defiance; it feels powerful. the point is to take a weapon used to hurt us away from our opressors and wield it for ourselves. dyke being a slur doesn't detract from it being an identity; that's kind of the point.

i'd be remiss if i didn't use this opportunity to pull out my trusty copy of the essential dykes to watch out for:

anyways, all that was just to illustrate that a word can be both a slur and an identity. the word queer obviously has been reclaimed much more broadly, to the point where my neighbor could say "my next door neighbor is queer" and mean it entirely respectfully. but while hearing that here in montreal wouldn't concern me, hearing a cis straight person call someone queer back in west virginia would give me pause.

once i was visiting friends back in west virginia, and at the time i thought i was panromantic. i was talking about how my friend's cis straight fiancé, shane, caught on when i stopped actively trying to come off as straight before i explicitly came out. this exchange ensued:

me: oh i knew shane knew

shane: oh yeah i knew you were a lesbian

me: well--

shane: well not a lesbian. pansexual

me: err not pan/sexual/, asexual... idk just call me queer

shane: i'm not gonna call you that! that's what rednecks call gay people!

and like, i could've pressed the point and explained that he could refer to me and his bisexual fiancée as queer without it being a slur, because it's also an umbrella term and an identity. but while that would fly behind closed doors, if he used the word queer in front of his coworkers, they would definitely get the wrong idea and think he was homophobic. and when he hears other cis straight people calling people queer, they 100% mean it as a slur. so my reaction was basically, oh right yeah i'm back in rural america right now, so of course a cis straight man would balk at the idea of calling me queer. he was unfazed by me calling myself and his fiancée queer, but his aversion to using the word himself out of respect made sense in that cultural context.

another example is an old controversy when a rapper cardi b was dating dropped a song with the line "i cannot fuck with queers." and like, cardi played dumb and tried to argue that he didn't mean queer as a slur. but it obviously fucking was in that context. and like, it would still be equally queerphobic if he said "i cannot fuck with gays," obv. but the use of the word queer there makes the line even harsher because in that derogatory context, he is absolutely intentionally choosing the word queer because it's a slur. the fact that it isn't always a slur doesn't soften that, imo.

anyways, that's just my two cents. ultimately: we're here, we're queer, and it's cool if we disagree sometimes

i saw a post earlier this week that said something along the lines of "guess what, queer can be a slur and an identity at the same time, those ideas can coexist" and ive been chewing on it all week bc i just dont think thats true??

like a slur is so much more than just offensive or insulting. its got so much more baggage, a slur is like, a word explicitly used to do violence to an oppressed group. it doesnt have a context outside the violence its used for.

i just dont see how something can be genuinely accepted and appreciated as a legitimate self-identity, and at the same time think that word is inherently and absolutely a tool for violence and oppression.

like yes queer can still be used as an insult. im queer - people can still call me it and i know from the context that they mean it pejoratively. but thats true of anything in my identity. ffs im british living in northern ireland - yes you can identify as something and it still be used to insult you haha

but thats not the same as a slur???

idk i have once again tried to have thoughts with a tummy full of pasta so this is a bit disjointed and im not sure i said it all. i think my key point is that i dont think u can genuinely respect the nuance and richness of a person's identity, and think it is a slur. wld love to hear ur thoughts, oh big blue void xx