#which isn’t just wrong because. transmen are men

[porcelainvino]

Unpopular Opinion Ask Game: 🏳️‍🌈💛

Which character who is commonly headcanoned as queer doesn't seem queer to you?

i already answered this one but now that i think about it more, maybe transman!kurt????? maybe idk i think i like that he’s a feminine(ish) man/amab person more :3 DON’T GET ME WRONG, TRANSMEN CAN BE FEMININE but i think i saw someone headcanon him as a transman because he “looks like a girl” or something and it has ruined me 😭😭😭 like ohhhhh that’s not…

What is a popular ship you just can't get behind, and why?

hmmmmmmmm kurt x any other man besides blaine but in a SERIOUS context. i love a silly little kurt ship (ex: my better!glee puckurt storyline) but when people are like “KURT AND [man that isn’t blaine] ARE SOULMATESSSS” it’s weird to me 😭 i think saying that any couple are “soulmates” is cringe by itself but something about all these mediocre men……. like tbh i don’t think i even like klaine that much when i think about it but like…………… why would you ship him seriously with any of these guys… they’re all so lame……… i’m sorry…..

[sanchoyo]

I was wondering— have you read Tokyo Mew Mew Olé? I've been bringing it all day and thinking about it in canon continuity made me think of 'The cat's out of the (to-go) bag!' since i really loved the timeline you made for it + hime azumi... sorry if this is like, completely random you're just like The tmm writer for me lolol and i just had to check if you'd read it or not and if you had any thoughts ,,

you saying I’m THAT tmm writer when I literally only have 3 tmm fics posted (…unless we could Tokyo miracle as a fanfic adjacent thing?? Fan comic?? 😭) makes me really happy… just wanted to start by saying thanks for that! I am generally thinking about tmm 90% of the time and have been consistently. For years. its my longest and most favorite series. 😳 so I do have thoughts on a lot of stuff but… not a lot to say about ole 💀

IMPORTANT preface: I just want to say that I wouldn’t post hater content unless specifically asked abt something. I have no problem with other ppl enjoying it either But ☝️ I don’t really enjoy all boy magical girl series/teams, personally. I tried to read it, but ultimately I didn’t finish reading it.

If you just wanted to know if I like it or not you can just stop reading now, I’m about to get ramble-y lol. short answer to your question is I dropped it because I couldn't get into it. and the Long answer...

I just don’t see the point in rebooting an all girl series in one of the very few female-lead genres and making all boys in that position? Like … it does not interest me. I did try to read it but it couldn’t hold my interest. It seemed like the same plot, same end villain twist, same scientist makes animal eared team just rehashed with not a lot new to say?? If your making a spin off I want it to feel like there’s a Reason for it or something new Besides Omg All Boys??? (weirdly sexualized high schooler boys?? NOT my cup of tea.)

And don’t get me wrong- I think the potential is there! it could be interesting or have something cool to say abt being boys in a girl dominated field/genre, or an interesting commentary about gender in general, like there are a few comics I've seen about transmen being magical boys!

…but aside from a few rare gems like that, these type of series never seem interested in doing anything like that… I don’t mind magical girl teams with a mix of genders on them tho!! I think it can create a really interesting dynamic! (I also am aware of the kiss between two of the boys? unsure if that ever went anywhere...)

But A lot of the boy only ones feel like ‘hah muscled men in frills/dresses isn’t that funny!’ Jokes which do rub me the wrong way. So I have to give ole points for seemingly not doing that? As far as I know? Bare minimum cleared?? It still kind of gives BL/yaoi bait/reverse harem energy with them being dressed like that which I DONT enjoy 😭

I wouldn’t be such a hater if it didn’t have the tmm name stapled to it either, but as far as I’m aware it’s a boy reboot unrelated to the original tmm characters so?? Why not call it it’s own thing instead of riding tmm’s coat tails? It would’ve been super easy to switch just a few things… but no, that IP name is the reason so many ppl even know about it 😑)

It being so stylistically and aesthetically different + the fact I have next to no interest in magical boys or honestly those…’all pretty boy with 2-3 girls max who barely get screen time of value aside from motivating the boys/being a romantic object’ type anime/manga … yeah I don’t see myself getting into it 🫠 I am a huge fan of girlie girl shoujo manga and it was NOT giving that vibe to me. I'm not the demographic for shounen ai...

Also a BIG issue for me, just as far as my first impression went: The original tmm had Such cohesive outfits, and was iconic for those, and like, one of my issues with ole is they don’t look like a team?? There are some…interesting or cute aspects of their fits but overall they don’t look like a unit at all. Or that they should be associated with tmm!! The aliens also looked less alien than the tmm aliens that already had barely any design variation from regular humans, so... L character design 😑

the only ones that even vaguely looked like they belong in the mahou shoujo genre and not a BL/shounen ai were the red one and the blue one but even then, they don’t look like they’re even from the same series! (I think they have the outfits with the most potential by far tho) If the designs hadn’t been so bad I might’ve finished it… but first and foremost I am a fashion fan and magical ppl of any gender NEED the fits. It’s an important element to me.

I can’t say anything about the characters bc I don’t remember literally any of them aside from the main girl anzu, thinking I’d wanna put her in the original tmm to be the orange mew we never got 💔 she would've been so cuteee in another berry/la mode-esque reboot...

All of that hatering to say idc if other ppl enjoyed it! I have friends who loved it! (one of my besties is the one who translated it lol!!) It kinda just boils down to me being picky and my particular tastes not being met haha I’m so sorry if this is a mega disappointing answer esp after you sounded like you wanted to hear me talk abt it after enjoying my writing oh no 😭 I just think there’s a LOT more interesting ways to do all boy tmm team if you’re going to that I could have enjoyed but the execution of this one wasn’t for me! 🫣 glad if it was for others and they liked it tho!!

[rametarin]

the fact that this is just an everyday thing..

I’m still kind of stunned TERFs are not only allowed to be acknowledged to be a thing now, but that it’s okay to drag them and even acknowledge their academics and authors by name and their works, without being shouted down, the subject changed and filibustered, or automatically tossed into the same trash bin with Ben Shapiro and Jordon Peterson for doing it.

Yep, more of the same thoughts. You can skip. Just reflecting and pondering my naval and also stuff that caused me a lot of grief as a child.

Back in my day, man-hating TERFs were invisible. You weren’t even allowed to acknowledge they existed, or else if you tried to communicate what you heard, you’d be smiled at and, “corrected,” assumed that you just filled in the blanks about feminism in a very unflattering way from your very fragile male egoed sheltered male-supremacist upbringing, awwwww.

They’d say, there are no real feminists that talk that way, while ignoring any feminist literature that spoke of male sexed or gendered people like we were the living dead out to prey on them, and that we caricatured feminists ourselves into horrible harpies, or we were listening to propaganda from religious traditionalists and white supremacists to get our opinions. In which case they’d visualize you as the effigy of an NPC woman-hating Nazi and just talk to you like one.

Yes this sure sounds familiar for other things, but god damn. TERFs were and still kind of are synonymous with feminism, everyday and radical kinds. We’re encouraged to make fun of TERFs by intersectionals, but only on the differences between an intersectional and a TERF. As if the only thing wrong about TERFs and their hatred of men is that their definition of man excludes transmen from men and calls them confused women.

But it blows my mind, every day. Not just “screw you, hippie” normies and obviously the right wing, but now even far-leftists/radical leftists are talking about radfems like they’re just female Nazis and conservatives if their feminism isn’t intersectional. Where before it was these TERFs that were in this amorphous cultural and institutional seat of power, writing the academic papers and having them buffered and repeated by college kids and made real by this cultural dissemination. And now they’ve been instructed to, “DIG THE FUCKING HOLE” that intersectionals want to culturally bury them in.

I both love and hate this. I love it because you can’t really know the pain of lonliness of what it was like to be male in an era where all the girls were defining and understanding themselves as women being told the men around them were all rapists and domestic abusers and brutal militaristic monsters, and encouraged to think in terms of sex-as-class, thus any boy around them was by default like the worst imaginary boogyman ou can imagine. How girls defined their relationships with boys by how much they proactively spoke up and performed about how horrible other boys were for, “not knowing about all this horrible history!” and communicating that they were conscientous and thus checking themselves and other men and thus, could be perceived as understanding and not a threat.

Radical Feminism made girls suspicious of and distrust males on the basis of, “the female sex is oppressed and boys are horrible,” and set the cultural standard of if boys were even worth respecting or associating with to how much they “admitted” to being terrible and trying to be better than the status quo they saw of American society at the time; male chauvinist, white supremacist, misogynistic. They made young girls terrified of men, suspicious of male family members but tenuously tolerant, and absolutely untrusting of any strange man that wasn’t coding their speech or actions or behaviors around whatever gripe or trope or catchphrase was memetically being passed around anybody that had family in sociology courses in college at the time they were lording their education on.

Being a boy is already alienating enough with the absence of trust unless vetted, the ease at which you can lose it, the slow rate of gaining it, the fact that by comparison girls get benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion (innocent until proven guilty is in fact INCREDIBLY radical for a court system, else more men would hang and fry.) But what the radfems were instilling in girls how to relate to boys, encouraging them to be terrified of us, at the same time claiming they were immune to accusations of sexism because sexism was only sexism when it was the patriarchy imposing oppression down on “the oppressed sex,” IE, girls.

They were simultaneously prejudiced and bigoted in their literature towards men, their supposedly equality seeking pro-woman or anti-man legislation designed to help women by either hobbling men or privileging women, and professing to be the ultimate arbiters of fairness and equality. So you could not contradict them without merely objecting proving you hated equality and were scared of women being your equal, and then they’d simply speak in your direction while telling off whatever chimera they saw of you composed of every right wing radio talkshow host, or conservative cultural author or crack jokes at you about preachers, like they applied to your position just because you disagreed with theirs (so therefore you MUST have just been supporting THE ENEMY, right?)

It’s just surreal. The stranglehold they had on the conscience of young women and their imaginations as they developed and sorted this shit out. It felt absolutely helpless. Other girls wouldn’t contradict the other girls that were more radical on the grounds of secular progressivism very often.. So you ran into the problem that the most likely girl to break with the girls-club and verbally say to stop shit talking boys within eavesdropping distance were the sort of girls that had a religious or personal cultural reason to do so. These were the type that would object to radfems on the premise that, “patriarchal culture is GOOD, ackshully. >:3.” And uh.. well... as a boy you at least appreciated they weren’t following the herd of arbitrary boy hating on the basis of some weird space utopia, but cringed viscerally that they were just swinging in the opposite direction. Those ones were immediately deleted from the secular progressive girls-club social and romantic bubble to go off and join hands with the religious girl romantic bubble of imagination and culture.

Then you had the girls that just wanted to jump rope that would sort of nod along and agree and giggle with the radical horseshit the soapbox standing girls would try to put into their vernaculars. (80s and 90s equivalents of, ‘mansplaining,’ ‘everything is phallic for men because they’re afraid of having a small penis’, ‘all rapists are men and most men are rapists.’)

Those ones would go along with and provide passive support any time a mouthy soapbox standing best friend decided to use peer pressure to make an example of a boy, making “the teachable moment” more real. But, they also wouldn’t follow the soapbox standing baby TERFs deeper down the rabbithole and kind of slip away like eels when asked. Still,

The contrast between boys, whom weren’t allowed to be neutral or impartial and the soapbox stander babby radfems WOULD call out, put on the spot, and then berate them as examples of everyday misogynists based on their answers of loaded questions just to perform to their girlfriends, and the fact girls that didn’t want to participate weren’t turned on and eaten alive quite so readily, was something you just sort of noticed as a male kid in the 80s.

It was an absolutely terrible time, and that whole setup had to’ve been orchastrated by people with a knowledge of sexual psychology and parasocial relationships, emotional histrionics and culture.

The same people that engineered radical feminism for them, also designed intersectional feminism as its 2.0 upgrade. Just designed it to eat its predecessor and then blame it on TERFs for being wrong. But, it’s the same culture. It’s the same principles in the same high ivory tower places. They’ve just anointed different people in the hierarchy to take on the generational positions as celebrity scholars writing papers on those basis.

And then once comedians started poking fun at and making absurdism towards the more radical parts of feminism, and your average person had more access to reading the absurdity of some of the authors and their credibility became shot, and even among kids, the credibility became mockable, radical feminism just sort of hit a cultural resistance point somewhere in the 90s.. I’d say around 91-93. I couldn’t say exactly when, but collectively it just started meeting resistance from even people that previously sympathized with it.

And the water carriers, the soapbox standers, quieted. Maybe they just worked it out of their system, maybe they feared overstaying their welcome, maybe they were told off and were afraid of being alienated.. But they went invisible again, and by 1993 it was fair game to make fun of feminists. Even among progressives.

They never went away completely. I can still remember some girls in my class talking gleefully about how, “men were going to be obsolete soon. They managed to make an egg start dividing in a lab with electric shock; we won’t even need boys to reproduce, soon.” Telling me snidely about how eventually the human species would ‘evolve’ beyond the need for men.

And it showed me another funny contrast between men and women; there are very few men that imagine utopia or paradise without women by their side. But there were a disturbing number of girls that, at least at the time, agreed men were superfluous and unimportant and something to be gotten rid of when they were no longer necessary. That men as a sex should be obsolete.

As a kid, that really hurt. Especially because these same girls tried to say they were for equality and were against discrimination based on sex. You only got the asterisked explanations of what that meant (”Equality for WOMEN, boys are already equal! Discrimination against WOMEN, men aren’t discriminated against by women because we live in a patriarchy and women have no power over it!”) if you pointed out the contradictions and tried to make their special operating logic fit their rhetoric. You had to verbally intervene and make a point to pull the curtain off the blackboxes and underline the algorithms so they couldn’t hide in the margins.

Things are so much better now. Just the fact I can complete these long, complicated thoughts and deposit them somewhere to be read and observed somewhere other than just my own conscience and arguing with made up figures in my head, without disrupting public space, without trying to find opportunities to argue these topics with people at watercoolers or other places people congregate at in real life and hope the discussions had pass on to repeat..

The discourse is just so much more efficient, complete, easier and diverse with media like tumblr and  Minds and what have you. When TERFs could deplatform you by calling you a Nazi and use their own offendedness to win benefit of the doubt and support for women against the horrible horrible misogynist, and give simps an opportunity to support them unconditionally, you could not get a productive word in edgewise.

Now? Even despite being a cis, heterosexual white dude, people all over the world, of all orientations and all backgrounds, can read me relating my experiences of dealing with the worst examples of radical feminism terrorizing developmental relationships between American children in the 80s and 90s, and nod in agreement that they’ve also experienced something like this in the pattern. Even if it’s not quite the same. They can at least better understand and validate.

Just the fact that the emotionally driven, benefit-of-the-doubt dependent era by necessity is over, is so very comforting. I can curse radfems and not automatically just be trashbinned as someone that thinks women shouldn’t vote or have careers or contribute to our society, “beyond their designation.”

Mouthy radfems screaming about how scientific, evidence based and rational they are, constantly needling, “PROVE IT! PROVE I’M WRONG! SHOW ME COUNTER-STATISTICS THAT AREN’T BY REPUBLICAN THINKTANKS!” in order to ‘legitimately’ disagree with them. And not having the resource of the internet, and access to other people that researched the topic and disseminated their debunk of whatever cooked book their got their statistic from. Not even really a library to pull from to argue with the, “professional scientists” in current year. Getting portrayed as an irrational brute that couldn’t support their dissent as anything more than denial to reinforce their narrative to other girls that, “this is just how the patriarchy works. :^)”- All of that can be countered now. Their sources are exposed, counter-arguments by similar scholars and academics are within arms reach, so you aren’t fighting a culture war by someone that only has to quote from a book and somehow do your own research to debunk it by hand.

Christ, the sheer number and the intensity of girls doing this that were my age drove me nuts, because every time it was just to teach other girls to think the worst of people like me on the basis of our sex. It felt helpless. The supposedly apolitical, nonreligious, scientific community telling such hateful garbage about men that you couldn’t touch because you were a kid, not a trained professor with a degree...

You weren’t even allowed to suggest they may have some sort of conflict of interest or conspiratorial ideology outside “equality and fairness for women.” Just that it was SCIENCE!

Bad as things seem today, I promise you they were literal millions of times worse for the way young boys see themselves in the era where you could be shown ideologically slanted cop dramas about woman-hating serial killer men and all domestic abusers on television being men, with no internet and no outlet to express annoyance at this. Things have only gotten better. The only reason they seemed to get worse is because they got more desperate for power and lost so much of it.

Intersectionalism is, honestly, the last gasp of this culture. It tries to haphazardly marry racial Marxism with sexual and gendered Marxism to be an all minority focused perspective of equality. But, it’s too late. In the process, they’ve destroyed the white woman feminism fantasy and hence, their most powerful demographic foothold. They’ve made it okay to alienate white women and deposition them from defacto heads of the movement, to groupie status. They can still contribute, but not as defacto community leaders on behalf of oppressed minorities. And in so doing, they’ve killed a lot of what motivated a lot of white feminists to be so active and involved.

What comes after Intersectionalism will just be the abstract and bizarre, openly transhumanist shell with no way to relate to regular people anymore. They may even just go back to just openly screaming about anti-capitalism in the absence of trying to “free” people by their race, sex, orientation or gender. Not because they don’t want to divide and conquer, but arguing that would be a nonstarter.

But childhood experiences like mine don’t leave bones for anthropologists to dig up, later. Only experiences, thoughts, feelings, and the relationships based on those ideas that drove them. Motivations. Character. These are ephemeral.

I guess that’s why I try to write them down. Because without them, they’d be deliberately memory holed- perhaps, even denied such things existed. And I know well the value of being able to throw things into the void just to blindside the next generation as if something doesn’t exist or it’s only them experiencing it, and preventing them from speaking to one another about it without leading them down a specific conclusion. Because I experienced the flawed, undeveloped version of that, saw through it, and came out the other end wisened and furious about it. And I worry this might be lost. Not knowing if it was just me, or if it was a phenomenon of the person imposing it on me, or if it was part of a conspiracy to behave this way. And it turned out, it was.

It’s 2022, and how I felt in the late 80s/early 90s is 100% vindicated.

[peanut-the-goalie]

ha okay me and my friend were ranting about the super straights yesterday smh

like okay if you don’t want to date trans people fine. I don’t see that as transphobic, it’s really just a preference. Not being attracted to them isn’t transphobic or anything. I think there’s thing where your attracted to the male or female body specifically idfk I read something about that a while ago

what is transphobic though is making a whole identity saying you would only date real women and real men, that part is transphobic. The part where you cancel out and silence our identities because you wouldn’t date us because we aren’t “real” women or “real” men.

And saying that you can’t be transphobic because it’s your “sexuality,” just... no. You can literally be internally homophobic if you’re gay or internally transphobic if your trans. Calling something your sexuality doesn’t erase your phobia. That’s not how it works at all.

Calling yourself “super straight” also refers that straight people who date transmen and transwomen are less straight. Which is transphobic on it’s okay because once again you’re just saying we aren’t real men and women but you’re also invalidating the straight people in a way as well

I have more to say on this but I also want someone to correct me if im wrong about any of this

[phoenixfire-thewizardgoddess]

What is your opinion on straight passing privilege? I (bi) don’t think it exists, but a close (lesbian) friend of mine insists that it does bc “You can hold hands with your SO (nb cis passing man) in public without risking being the victim of a hate crime.” I have been researching but keep seeing this same argument coming up, and I’m unsure and don’t want to be making anyone upset if I’m being ignorant here.

I think that there's a lot of fucked up internet politics around who is and isn't allowed in the community. Which is ridiculous.

Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Pan, Poly, Ace, Aro, Trans, Intersex, etc.

The only people who shouldn't be in the community are cishets, and pedos, none of that 'it's a sexuality' nonsense, it's predation.

The concept of straight-passing is ridiculous, primarily because it's all based on assumptions. If you're in an m/f relationship, and you are both cis and heterosexual, it's straight.

But here's the catch, if you identify as any LGBPT+ then it's not straight.

Two trans people in an m/f relationship is not straight passing.

Two bi people in an m/f is not straight passing, it's queer babes, it's in the name. If you're bi and your partner is like, straight, it's still queer from your side of the fence.

It's the 'pick a side' argument from another direction, this straight passing nonsense. Where you are villified by the straights if you have a same-sex relationship (or fetishised, let's be real, every part of the acronymn has it's own p*rn category aimed at straight people with a kink), and if you have a relationship with the opposite gendered person, the queer community gets cranky.

Two things:

1) Is this friend between 13 and 25? Bc they could still be working this out or being mentored by t*rfs, or had some bad info. IT could be jealousy or fear of being open where you live. Perhaps you could question what makes her say that; has she had a bad experience, or did someone say this to her. where are you Are you in america? are there snake wielding jesus warriors near you? Blink SOS if you need an escape route, child

2) Who wins when everyone in the queer community is divided and policing one another? Telling everyone off for dating this person or that person or not at all

I didn't get an invite to the big queer conference to make these decisions, so like, they're not valid. It's some pocket of internet active idiots who think they can speak for everyone.

What we need to do is stop pulling this bullshit on one another and get back to asking just why the fuck it's not okay for people who are perceived as not-straight or cis etc to hold hands in public.

There's a problem for every facet of the acronym, babes and dudes and theys. Lesbians are heavily sexualised by straight cis dudes. Gays are heavly fetisihed by straight cis women. to the point where even saying 'I'm gay' is considered to be an obscene, sexual act that you should not let children be exposed to.

And there's always someone from the opposite gender who thinks they 'are confused' or 'haven't met the right (gender) person yet', or 'they could fix them with their magic genitals' or mumbled religious nonsense. There's such intense stereotypes that people can't stand women who look butch, but also you can't 'really' be a lesbian unless you are' or gay men can't just be, like, a normal dude, instead of some flamboyant in-your-face charicature.

Of course people who match the stereotype exist, too. And they get no respect for fitting into the stereptypes either, it's just another reason for disrespect. There's no winning.

Bi's can't talk to anyone without hearing a question of a threesome come up or being attacked from either side for coice of partner.

Pans, same, but also kitchenware jokes. Both Bi and Pan are considered sluts and whores and can't decide or are going to cheat, etc. Or the 'you're being special snowflakes', 'choose a side', 'you're secretly gay and won't admit / you're secretly straight and want attention' etc.

Ace/Aro - everyone under this banner gets the whole 'you just haen't found the right person' or 'when you're older/you're a late bloomer' or 'how do you know?' or 'maybe you're straight/gay and haven't worked it out yet?' invalidating them completely and trying to push sex onto them. The queer community has always let Ace and Aro in under the Bi banner, and they are welcome. But the internet community, usually young people, are tearing each other to shreds over it lmao.

Chill.

Non-binary, trans, intersex. They have been here for ages, but people from one community try to destroy their credibility, despite them existing since humanity has. It's big on p*rn and fetish sites too, lot of straight dudes think these things are hot and sexy, but would spit on trans people in the street. Hypocrites (I mean, every second low-brow comedy movie out there makes a thai-l*dyb*y joke, and how it 'doesn't count' like yikes).

Nb has only just been recognised, which is funny bc society literally made up gender and the rules and pretended that was how its encoded in DNA lmao.

Transpeople have it bad though. Between the cis straights, the cis queer community (primarily t*rfs and those who fall for misinformation) and the fetishists, and the medical community who treats them like an illness rather than people. Like, they are afforded respect if they 'pass', but even then it's still an EW factor.

Transwomen are seen as 'men in dresses who want to break into women's spaces' and treated horrifically; assaults are very high. Transmen are seen as butch women, and 'gender tr*itors' by the Crazy Motherfuckers we mentioned before; their assaults are high. They're not considered Real People unless they meet the ridiculously high standards for each gender; unless they perform Right.

I remember, but did not understand at the time bc I recall i was little, that there was a gameshpw bachelorette style and there was a big twist. You know what the twist was? That the bachelorette they'd been dating and trying to win over... was trans. I don't think that she knew it would be the big twist, either; of the two men remaining, bother were angry and one might have been sick. Might be on youtube.

But like, that's funny to the non-queer community. They put a huge fucking target on this woman's back, put her in danger of being hurt, abused, killed, by anyone who watched it. By the men who she had 'lied to' as they chose to frame it, of their weird white american families who could have sought revenge. Like yikes.

And intersex people (called h*rmaphrodites for a long time even by medical personnel) were also a p*rn category and/or medical curiosity for centuries. Not to mention all the cases of parents who just went with 'make them a (specific gender)' if there was mixed presentation, at birth, and got mad at the kids for being like "Hey so, you flipped the coin wrong and I'm ___" even thought the potential for this was always on the cards.

And the parents often make a big messa bout how their baby ___ is dead and gone, even if they DO accept the person/child as who they really are. It's like, I get it they have changed but you didn't mourn their first haircut or lost baby tooth like this and that was change too, chill.

-

Straight-passing is a projection and a weapon. Like, is it the people in the relationship's fault that society looks at the pair and decides they are m/f, straight and cis? Nah, it's what people are conditioned assume and that's on them.

We can't bring it into the queer spaces and keep perpetuating that shit, because it's nonsense. Queer people are dying in other countries and your friend wants to being smart-assed about the fact you hold hands with your nb datemate in public?

-

Nonsense. That's right up there with t*rfs and the gold-star bullshit that was going on for a few years there. Probs still is among the younger people lmaoooo.

'Passing priviledge' is a myth, and it is used to hurt people. Vulnerable people and those who need support / guidance and assistance from their queer communities more than ever. So try to talk to your friend or try The Whole Friend disposal services, either way, chill.

The real issue here is that any of us are at risk of a hate crime for daring to even show affection in public. That even in safe spaces, 'allies' and those wise enough not to be openly homo/trans/bi/pan/ace/aro/other phobic are still side-eyeing you and wanting to talk 'for you' without listening to the community itself.

We have bigger issues than this, and your friend (and some others on the internet) need to get a grip and prioritise.

[Insert strained analogy about being pro-child but childfree in a suburb where everyone got married out of high school and anticipates you and your partner will too, no matter how often you remind them No Thanks. But you babysat the other day and people thought you and your partner looked like 'naturals' when you took child to the park and played with them. And you remind them, hey, chill, we like kids too but it's not for us. And they get pissy and pushy.]

---------

I can only point it out from my perspective, I'm certain there other queer people from the above acronymn community who can present their thoughts on the matter to and what it means to them.

Thanks for the question, good-bi.

[ardenttheories]

Something gleaminggarmore said pinged hella true so here I am, making another post on Homestuck and gender.

So much of Roxy's character arc works around her being fem and really should have been USED by the writers of HS2 to make her either transfem or fem-aligned nb because she IS coded that way more than anything else. This is a lot of why I think people outright refuse the transmasc Roxy canon while advocating June canon.

However. I can't think of a single character that actually stood out to me as coded transmasc if we get rid of Meat's Roxy. Like. Dave, I guess, if you corrolate some of his abuse under Bro as being forced to "man up". But I don't really think "emotional vulnerability" is an inherently transmasc trait, and like, that detracts away from the importance of showing cis men with emotions in a society that is STILL trying to enforce toxic masculinity on them.

Dirk, maybe? He's the one I'd say is transmasc more than anything, at a push. But now they're writing him as a cis man in HS2. Which is just... swell. Really. I'm not bitter about it at all. /s

And none of the originally female characters feel transmasc to me the way June feels transfem to transwomen. They all FEEL fem to me, unrefutably, and not like even closeted transmen.

Which is why it boggles me that instead of giving us good transmasc rep they took the fem coded character instead and made her masc. Though maybe half the problem is they couldn't find a character the fandom decently cared enough about that was actually CODED transmasc, so they just threw names in a bag and Roxy was the first one out.

So many of the characters were written as cis people BY a cis person, and it desperately shows. Now that they're actually trying to canonise things, they're just... very much doing it wrong. Because you can't just take a cis-coded character and slap on a shiny new gender as if that's what being trans is - and you sure as HELL shouldn't take a fem coded character and make her masc - but there's almost no other way to do it with how Homestuck was written.

Bc again, if we get rid of Roxy, we have... no transmasc rep at all, really. Best we got is Lanque and he's in the fucking game that doesn't seem like it's ever going to drop. The one that isn't even associated with Homestuck's main story.

It's infuriating to see what little rep we have and how it's actually pretty bad rep at that. Like. If you don't care enough to do it right, don't fucking pander to us, bc all it's done is taken transfem rep away from transwomen and fem-aligned enbies and stopped transmen from having actual, genuine representation confirmed in canon.

[monsterfuxxxxer]

When I was young, trans ppl fled the bi community because it was super transphobic. To be fair, all communities were transphobic. Look up lesbian separatists and other anti trans groups of the late 90s, early 2000s. Panphobes are right when they say pan was created to mean cis and trans ppl, but they're wrong about the reason. We created pan to mean cis and trans, to prevent the transphobia from spreading. So that you literally cannot be pan and transphobic at the same time. We have some fetish pans, and some pans who think trans ppl are different genders from cis, which is really bad. But the pan community has always been trans allies.

This response ended up being LONG wow

While I see that you have good intentions, it’s important to point out that no one is immune to transphobia based on identities alone.

I see that you are aware that it’s a problem when pan people draw a line between transmen transwomen and men and women, but you also said that pan was created to include cis and trans people. I want to expand on this because the line of logic here is what people are having a problem with:

I would disagree with “panphobes are right when they say pan was created to include cis and trans people” because bisexuality already did that. We can’t go saying that pansexuality was created to include trans people because that’s the transphobic problem that pan critiquers are pointing out.

The thing that by very very simple definition alone that differentiates pan and bi are the roots of the words, as I explained in the response post. Bisexuality has always included men, women, nb and any genderqueer people. That being said, it makes sense for young people to not know this when looking at definition alone and without knowledge of the bi communities intricacies, to create the pan label to include all genders.

HEAR ME: BI PEOPLE ALWAYS INCLUDED ALL GENDERS, BUT ITS VALID TO HAVE CREATED PAN TO DO THE SAME THING AND ITS VALID TO ID AS EITHER.

To hear more on that, skip to the “I want to draw a line between actual lgbt+ ideas and terf mentality” section

I have a couple things to say before that though:

The mentality that you can id as pan and that means you’re not transphobic is the big issue here. The pan community has to stop spreading this mentality because it isn’t true. Pan people absolutely can be transphobic, as can anyone in any community.

Pan people are being targeted rn because of saying things like “because I’m attracted to men women AND trans people, I am immune to transphobia.” We have to stop letting people believe that transmen and transwomen should be classified differently than men and women, and that being attracted to trans people makes you immune to transphobia.

This exact mentality is why pansexuality is being attacked rn.

We’re wasting time arguing over whether bi or pan is the one true valid identityTM when the truth is theyre both great. The difference between them is either small or nonexistent but matters to some people and that’s fine! They can coexist! It’s wonderful and beautiful! They’re FUNCTIONALLY synonyms but as I said, it’s preference!

What we should be spending time on is spreading info to help people avoid falling into terf mentality.

I want to draw a line between actual lgbt+ ideas and terf mentality.

The bisexual people you knew that excluded trans people? Probably affected by terf mentality.

They were young and unless they came from an lgbt+ positive family, had an education system that taught them about trans identity, or were magically never affected by problematic mainstream ideas, terf mentality probably bled into their ideas.

Pan people that say being attracted to transmen and transwomen makes them different from bi people? Terf mentality.

At some point in everyone’s lives, we were led to believe that transmen and transwomen are different from men and women. We were led to believe that bisexuality mean an attraction to two genders, and that those two genders were the binary of men and women. At some point, we were all led to believe these things and through community support, NOT faceless tumblr attack posts, unlearned them and grew as people.

I believe that it was somewhere in this miscommunication in which pansexuality was created to include genderqueer people that don’t fall into the men/women label. it is mostly young people identifying as pan and it is mostly young people that only have the words they hear and their interpretation of them to give meaning to. Even if they stumble upon the real bi mentality that bi includes all genders, it’s still valid to id with the pan label, or to change and feel more comfortable with the bi label, or the omnisexual label or literally anything it doesn’t matter and it’s harmless and we should support them.

So to the people spreading pan hate: if your goal is to divide the community, keep it up. If your goal is to stop transphobia, there is a more effective less harmful way to do that which also saves you from dividing the lgbt+ community

Spread information about how bisexuality includes all genders too, and the matter of preference between identifying as bi or pan is just preference.

Doing this will stop people in the pan community from getting the idea that “bisexual means two genders” to begin with.

And keep spreading information about transmen and transwomen, what it means to be trans, transphobic people and blogs to avoid, and how to avoid transphobia all together. Share resources that educate people about bisexuality, pansexuality, and the trans identity.

Alright that was probably much longer of an answer than you wanted but if you read all that, thanks!

[thepoetlillies]

I am not an oracle fyi, this is just what I have gathered so far and if I am wrong about anything or say anything insensitive, please correct me and I’ll better myself to be a greater ally, because even though I’m queer/fluid, I don’t know the struggles of being trans/gnc firsthand x

Transwomen are women. Ciswomen are women. Transmen are men. Cismen are men. Nonbinary folk are not men or women.

Yet they are all valid.

Firstly, to define a woman by the biological functions of ciswomen is not only cruel, but a disguised act of transphobia.

Not all ciswomen have wombs. Not all ciswomen menstruate. Not all ciswomen go through the menopause. So already this definition is flawed.

Your gender identity does not rely on these.

The concept that the acknowledgement of transpeople is dangerous to cispeople, specifically ciswomen, is atrocious. Allowing transwomen to use the restroom/changing room that they identify with should be common sense but instead transphobes twist the sick tale that it is dangerous. That transwomen will assault ciswomen in those places, or that men will dress as women to get in there to assault ciswomen. It is cruel to deny basic rights to transpeople just because of the most sick people in society who might abuse it. Transwomen are not a danger to ciswomen. Transmen are not a danger to cismen. Nonbinary folk are not a danger to cispeople.

I also find this argument ridiculous for the fact that it recognises that the problem is not transwomen, but cismen who assault people. So how about instead of discriminating against the trans community, we address the issue of cismen harrassing/assaulting/raping people. That’s the real issue there. Instead of denying transpeople their right to exist and teaching people that it is wrong to be trans/nonbinary, teach people not to rape.

Another argument I have seen claims that the acknowledgment of the trans community and nonbinary community erases the struggles/experiences of ciswomen. This is also not true. We know about women’s suffrage, it is an incredible part of world history and therefore cannot be erased. By allowing transwomen, this does not erase modern struggles/experiences either. I assure you. There are still struggles facing women in this day and age but transwomen will not take that away. They face their own struggles/experiences on account of gender identity, such as this one you have created for them. Ciswomen will still face discrimination on account of their gender, just like transwomen do, so why aren’t we working together to create equality among everyone regardless of gender? Unless that isn’t what these transphobes want.

Moreover, I’ve seen the argument that the acknowledgment of transpeople erases the identity of cispeople. Again, this isn’t the case. Nobody is saying that a ciswoman is not a woman and that a cisman is not a man. Because they are that. But also transwomen are women and transmen are men. They are not a threat to cismen and ciswomen. Because the rights granted to the trans community and nonbinary community are not rights taken away from the cis community. That’s not how it works; it just means that there are more rights. What it does mean however, is that cispeople lose the unfair privilage they have by identifying with their born gender and the world becomes a more equal place because certain people don’t benefit from the discrimination and oppression of other people on account of gender. To say that you don’t accept transgender or nonbinary identities is to say that you want to maintain the privilage you get from their oppression, and therefore do not want gender equality. And that’s not okay, so we will continue to point out your insensitive, discriminatory actions and comments until we reach equality which we deserve.

Additionally, it is not misogynistic to point out these behaviours, i.e the case regarding JK Rowling. It is not misogynistic to argue with one ciswoman for her blatantly discriminatory views. By correcting her, we do not diminish her identity as a woman, for she is one, and we do not criticise on the basis of her gender. We also do not criticise with the intention of discrediting all women, as she does not speak for all women. We criticise on the basis that she is oppressing the gender identity of so many, including so many that previously looked up to her. And it is not misogynistic to do so. Also JK, nobody is saying that sex doesn’t exist, we are simply providing the distinction between sex and gender as they are different, even though your sex and gender are both female. And TERF isn’t a slur by the way so it’s also not misogynistic to say because Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists do not actually fight for equality.

To the trans/gender nonconforming community, you are loved, you are supported, and you are valid !

I think this was pretty much everything I wanted to say, and if you identify as trans or nonbinary and I’ve said something wrong, please correct me because I just want to be the best ally I can for you 💜 !

[jfg22]

The more I read into asexuality. The more I realize I’m asexual af. I’m definitely demisexual and graysexual more specifically. Also hearing my friend’s friend talk about her kinks is like whoa I have never felt more asexual because I’m not interested at all in talking about sex or kinks.

I have spent numerous time in a male strip club thinking I am in no way sexually attractive to men in that setting. Sure they are aesthetically pleasing but I wasn’t thinking I want to get to know any of them better. Yet I’ve been to a female strip club and I’m aroused but also weirded out because I respect women and I don’t know what is the level of inappropriate touching in that setting. In addition, to this I also find some transwomen and transmen beautiful af. In fact, I have made out with a transwomen and I also made out with lesbians. That being said I find certain cis-hetero men and cis-women attractive but....that doesn’t mean I necessarily mean I want to have sex with them. 

And yes I’ve had a boyfriend but I’ve no interest in having one at the moment. I have no interest in having sex with anyone right now. Not even with myself! I need some semblance of bond, attraction etc. I remember having sex with my ex boy-friend and towards the end of the relationship I wasn’t even remotely sexually aroused. I also had a lot of male hookups but I didn’t really care to have a relationship with them because they were kind of assholes.  

I always thought what is wrong with me but maybe I’m just me. Pansexual, asexual hot mess of a person. lol. I tried dating apps and I can’t say that I found myself attracted to many people. I thought maybe they’re cute but that doesn’t mean I wanted to jump the gun and have sex with random people. There was one I liked but he didn’t like me back enough because he ghosted me. The other one was semi-attractive but in the long run I can’t say that I cared to be a relationship with him either. He was just sort of vanilla and boring. I’m fairly certain I can’t be with another white guy again... unless he’s some sort of other race. For the record my ex was Polish American. I always have this hang up of oh god does he like me? Or am I fulfilling some sort of a weird Latina fetish this white guy has? Meaning does he think I’m girlfriend material or he thinks i’m good enough to fuck and that’s it. Maybe I’ve had bad experiences with white American males but you get my point. It’s just psychologically exhausting to deal with that shit. And I don’t want to deal with that again. At least I knew from my ex that he loved me for who I was at the time we were together. I remember he was my friend before I developed feelings for him. 

It should be noted that I’m generally picky as fuck. Meaning I like what I like. I find dark hair attractive and dark eyes. Generally don’t find blue or green eyes attractive in the least bit or blonde or red hair for that matter. Science says you like people genetically similar. I myself have dark hair and eyes by the way. I generally think some Asian men are hot as fuck. Maybe because I hooked up with a Filipino guy who looked like an Asian Joseph Gordon Levitt but shit when my friend said we looked similar I didn’t see it until she pointed it out. Also I spoke to him long enough to be like oh we have things in common this is cool! Again....bonding. Which also explains why my love language is quality time AND physical touching comes second. 

I had a sort of one night stand but I had already been talking to him for awhile before we hooked up. He dumped me but looking back I didn’t like him in the long run because he came back around and I thought he was needier than I was. I’m needy for the record so there can only be room for one needy-ish in a relationship! In my defense after therapy I am not as needy as before....I can’t say this with certainty for the mere fact that I haven’t been in a serious relationship in a long ass time. Like I don’t even know how long ago that was... maybe 10 years ago? smeh.

As I look back I can’t say I’m into hooking up either. Yes I had a few guys I found sexually attractive but this was only after we bonded on some level. So before you go on thinking I’m a slut or weird....know that I can count all the men I’ve slept with on one hand. Also the idea of dating 2 people at the same time is kind of repulsive to me for some reason. I’m not ruling it out or judging people who do but it’s not my style for sure.

In terms of sexual attraction things I find attractive are arbitrary. Yes I find dark hair and dark eyes attractive, but that doesn’t mean I can’t like a guy with hazel eyes. My ex had hazel eyes and light brown hair btw. Also I know I say I like tall guys but I’ve had sex with guys who are shorter and in no way doesn’t that mean I rule out anyone below 6 feet tall. As long as they are an inch taller than me I’m ok with that. And here is where it gets arbitrary as fuck. I have made out with lesbians who have dark hair and fair skin but I made out with a black trans women. Again I’m not ruling gender expression out. I definitely not interested in dating apps of any kind. I noticed I’m more productive when I’m not in a relationship.

Also I am not interested in getting married or having kids. I know women my age are either dying to get married or are married with kids. I can’t say I’m the type of person that was planning their wedding dress since I was a little girl. Definitely not ruling it out the possibility but, I’m not in a rush to get married by a certain age. In fact, I’d be happy just finding someone who isn’t an asshole and treats me right. It’s funny one of cis-hetero female friends asks me if I”m every having kids and my answer has always been the same. Maybe I haven’t met the right person, but I honestly can’t say I have my biological clock ticking telling me to have a child anytime soon. The idea of having one is daunting af. As a survivor of sexual abuse, all the racist and transphobic/homophobic shit that’s been going on my entire life I can honestly say I think it’s rather sadistic to bring a child into this world. Not to mention the fact that global warming will fuck up the planet and I’m not sure if that’s going to be reversible but rather just extend our quality of life for a few years. People are assholes. I’ve been hurt many times. I’m sure I’ve hurt people too not even meaning to. I have no desire to bring a child into this hell hole we call a planet. 

On a more positive note, I’m perfectly happy being single. When I think of the future potential relationship. I want someone to love me unconditionally. Someone kind, open minded, tolerant of my LGBTQ friends/family, (I can’t be dating no transphobes or homophobes, the only phobia permitted is germophobia!) generous to others (not just myself), thoughtful, humble, attractive by my standards. Mostly someone who will be there for me till one of us dies. Someone who sticks around even when life gets hard. Tall, dark hair, dark eyes. And I know for a fact I can get that. It’s not even the law of attraction it’s just a certainty that I know within myself that I will be with someone of a different ethnic race than mine. I’d also like to have 2 cats and a cute little puppy. Preferably one that looks like a little fuzzy brown stuffed bear. I’d like to have a cute cozy house. I don’t desire a mansion. I need someone who isn’t going to be a little pretentious fuck and is okay with not having the most expensive bullshit because in the long run that doesn’t matter. I know I am a writer and I can live off that eventually. I just need to buckle down and finish my shit which is taking longer than anticipated. I procrastinate writing several things (like this post.hehe) but also I like reading things to make me a better writer. That being said maybe I’m not as weird as I thought I’m just fantastically pansexual, asexual, unique af. Happy Pride month y’all! 

To my LGBT friends and people reading this, I love you and desire that one day we can live in a world where you no longer have to fear for your safety and people will love and respect you for who you are regardless of how you identify or who you are attracted to. I have faith that the younger generation will be more tolerant than past generations. I hope to instill that in my nieces. I remember I used to have a shirt that said “Labels are for jars and you are not a jar.” I don’t remember what happened to it but I can honestly say that always stuck with me. 

Today is my best friends birthday and 8 days ago it was my cousin’s birthday and I can honestly say that I have loved them regardless of what anyone says about them. And I will stand up proudly for them if anyone starts saying transphobic/homophobic shit. I will love them and respect them until the day I die. (Hopefully that won’t be anytime soon). I am blessed to have them both in my life and teach me to be more mindful of what is going on in the world. And an overall better human being. I take the life lessons they teach me with me for the rest of my life and hope that I can be of somewhat comfort to them in knowing that regardless of what happens to us they will never lose that love, appreciation and respect I have for them. 

[s-cornelius]

Defining Queer: An Ontological and Epistemological Discussion of Queerness

To start with, I’m not a philosopher and I’m not a sociologist. I’m just a linguist who likes to talk about stories and use jargon-y words. I’ve been in fandom (in some form or another) since the late 90s, and I’m a bisexual/queer ciswoman married to a man. I say all of this so you understand where I’m coming from (my positionality, if you’re nasty).

I’m writing this piece because I see a lot of people in fandom spaces using terms like “queer”, “cishet”, “queerbaiting”, and others. I find use of these terms to generally be vague, misleading, or just downright wrong. There seems to be consensus in fandom that these are Important Things to talk about, but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on what they mean. So, as a queer woman who has engaged in fandom for 20 years, I want to talk about the idea of queerness and what it means to be queer.  

So, in this essay, I’m going to address three major questions:

What does it mean for an individual to be queer?

What does it mean for a relationship to be queer?

What does it mean for a piece of media to be queer?

I’m going to argue that for an individual to be queer is an ontological and epistemological issue, for a relationship to be queer is just epistemology, and for a piece of media to be queer is an epistemology plus diegesis. I’ll explain what these words mean (and how I’m going to use them), and I’ll have some sources sprinkled throughout. It’s generally Bad Academic Practice to source Wikipedia, but for the sake of accessibility and ease of explanation, Wikipedia is a good source for this essay.

Ok, so let’s define some terms. I’m going to start with the most obvious, but also perhaps the hardest to pin down: queer.

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community. (x)

So there are a few major takeaways for the word queer. The first one is that queer is inclusive--it’s an umbrella term. The second one is that it describes people who are not heterosexual and/or cisgender. A definition by saying “we are not x” is actually not a great definition, so we’ll come back to this point later. The third one is that queer is political, and it always has been; crucially, queer does not equal LGBT.

Now on to the jargon: ontology and epistemology both come from the field of philosophy, and diegesis has its origins in Greek theater, but I hear it mostly used now to talk about film.

Ontology is the study of being. Ontology asks questions like what is a thing? what exists? What categories of things are there? So, for my purposes, when I talk about ontology, I’m talking about categorization and identity. What are the labels we give ourselves? What categories do we sort ourselves into? How do we identify ourselves?

Epistemology is the related study of knowing. Epistemology asks questions like how do we know something is true? how do we define truth? how do we make justifications? For my purposes, epistemology has a lot to do with how we define social truths and norms. What is true about human gender/sexuality/etc.? How does queerness affect one’s beliefs? I use worldview as a kind of short hand for epistemology in this essay, though epistemology is really only one part of a person’s worldview. But, for my purposes, worldview works just fine.

Diegesis refers to anything within a narrative text--characters, plot, setting, etc. are all diegetic (or intradiegetic). Things outside the text, like the score of a movie or the UI of a videogame, are extradiegetic.

Ok now that we have all the jargon down, let’s tackle the first question: What does it mean for an individual to be queer?

As I previewed above, I define queerness for an individual to be a matter of both ontology and epistemology. I want to come back to the definition of queer here, specifically the part that defines queerness as “not cisgender and heterosexual”. This is a bad category ontologically speaking, because the definition doesn’t point to all the things that make up this category, but rather the things that don’t. Queerness, in this definition, is a catch-all; I’m not sure that’s really an accurate way to think of queerness. At least in linguistics, the catch-all category is for the default, unmarked cases, and queerness is not that at all.

So I’m going to switch things up a little and change this part of the definition. Instead of defining queer by what it’s not, I’m going to define queer epistemologically. Queerness is not just not being heterosexual/cisgender, but a rejection of the heteronormativity (“the belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the gender binary, is the norm or default sexual orientation”). This rejection may derive from social ostracization and condemnation from same-gender attraction/behavior and/or gender non-conforming, but ultimately is not quite the same thing as LGBT.

Queerness and Queer Theory seek to deconstruct notions and norms of gender, sexuality, and all of the social baggage that comes along with them. Therefore, being asexual and/or aromantic is inherently queer as these identities are a rejection of social expectations for behavior. This deconstructionist impulse may even be at odds with people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender. For example, Natalie Wynn, in her video about Pronouns, discusses that her desire to be perceived as a woman is inherently counter to someone who seeks to eradicate or seriously challenge the gender binary (as with non-binary individuals).

None of this is to say that an individual person can’t identify as both L, G, B or T and also queer, but this is where we come back to ontology. Ontology has to do with how we identify and how we make categories. For example, I use both bisexual and queer to identify myself. I use bisexual because I experience sexual and romantic attraction to more than one gender, and I use queer because it includes this idea of challenging gender and sexual norms (and also it doesn’t necessitate explanation of all the details of my gender/sexuality).

Therefore, one person’s use of queer to describe themselves is both ontological, because they are defining and categorizing themself, and epistemological, because being queer is essentially a lens through which to know the world.

So, if an individual’s queerness is a mix of identity and worldview, what about a relationship?

A relationship can’t have an identity the same way that an individual human can, i.e. a relationship can’t pick a category for it to belong to because it’s not a sentient entity. Americans can categorize relationships by the genders of the people in that relationship--heterosexual for man+woman, homosexual for man+man or woman+woman. These categorizations, of course, exclude relationships that have more than two people, and people whose genders are not “man” or “woman”. But this still isn’t really the same thing as me, an individual person, choosing to use bisexual to label myself.

Therefore, a queer relationship isn’t really the same thing as a homosexual relationship, though they may overlap. Queerness, in a relationship, is entirely epistemological. How does the relationship operate?

Traditional heterosexual relationships (at least in 20th/21st century USA) privilege the man, and the woman is subservient. Men work outside the home and women raise children/do domestic work. Men and women in a traditional heterosexual relationship are supposed to have all of their emotional, physical, etc. needs met by their partner. Traditional heterosexual relationships are monogamous, both sexually and emotionally.

But a queer relationship questions accepted social norms. A queer relationship may not be monogamous, it may reject the traditional gender dynamic, and so on. What I’m ultimately saying is that a heterosexual relationship, that is a man and a woman in a relationship, can be queer. This is because queer relationship does not equal homosexual. I’ll give two examples.

I’ll start with the easier example: a heterosexual relationship only requires one man and one woman, but makes no stipulation that the man and woman have to be cisgender. There are plenty of transmen exclusively attracted to women and transwomen exclusively attracted to men. Just because the make up of their relationship is man+woman, doesn’t mean that their relationship isn’t queer. The queerness is baked in because they themself may be queer.

The second example seems to be more emblematic of a sticking point for some people. I am married to a heterosexual man, but we are in a queer relationship. Because I am queer, and it affects how I respond to social norms, I also reject heteronormativity in my romantic relationship. My husband and I have been together for almost 13 years and married for 3; for the longest time, I did not want to get married because the idea of marriage, specifically the traditional idea of marriage, disgusted me. To me, marriage is the realm of religion and the state, neither of which I wanted to be particularly involved in my relationship. The reasons we ended up getting married were practical (I now have health insurance!), but also because my husband is a big ol’ romantic and we compromised (we get married and I keep my name). This is just one example of how my notions of gender/sexual expectations have been a part of my relationship, but there are plenty of others. Also I am visibly queer and waiters often think we need two checks when we eat out together. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(If you want to see someone else talk about this, I recommend looking into Erika Moen’s autobiographical work. This tweet thread is just one example of her discussing being queer and being married to a man.)

Therefore, queer relationships are not about identity, but rather how the epistemology of one or both or all people in a relationship affects the operation and function of that relationship. A queer relationship is one that rejects heteronormativity, not one that exclusively consists of people of the same gender. This makes it sound like if a cisgender heterosexual man and cisgender heterosexual woman are in a relationship, it could potentially be queer, which I think is the fear of anyone who pushes back on the possibility of a man and a woman being in a queer relationship together. However, if the two individuals in a relationship are both cisgender and heterosexual, neither of them has rejected heteronormativity in one way or another (even if they have non-traditional gender roles in the relationship). Therefore, if at least one person in a relationship is queer (whether they be asexual, gender non-conforming, homo/bisexual, etc.) the whole relationship is queer.

Finally, I get to stories: What makes a particular piece of media queer?

As discussed for individual identity and relationships, a piece of media is queer because it has a queer epistemology. There is a way of constructing truth in a narrative that rejects heteronormativity, but it is important to discuss whether this rejection happens in the text of the work (diegetic) or the rejection is in social context in which the work was created (extradiegetic).

One interesting example is the Imperial Radch books by Ann Leckie. In these books, the main political force in the story doesn’t distinguish gender in its pronouns. Therefore, everyone the main character encounters is “she” regardless of their biology or gender identity. Within the story (diegetically), this is not queer. This is the established norm of a very large and powerful people, and just a function of their language. Now, outside the story (extradiegetically), the use of “she” is queer af. This is a deliberate choice by the author to question our assumptions about what is “normal” and “default”.

Steven Universe does something similar by having a race of sentient space rocks who only use “she” as their pronouns. Extradiegetically, this again challenges ideas about how the gender binary is “supposed” to work, plus the space rocks demonstrate a wide range of expressions of femininity. Within the story (diegetically), we see metaphorical of rejection of heteronormativity, specifically through Garnet and her story. Therefore, Steven Universe is both epistemologically and diegetically queer.

Does this make Steven Universe more queer than the Imperial Radch books? Maybe it does.

For me, Steven Universe “feels” queer, while the Imperial Radch books don’t. I really love the Imperial Radch books and the way they make you actively think about how “she” is generally not considered the default pronoun. But this is all outside the text. I engage with the text as a person in a particular social context where women are lower on the social hierarchy than men, but the characters in the Imperial Radch books don’t share this social context. The construction of social order for the gems in Steven Universe, to contrast, is similar to my social context, so both within the text and outside the text, Steven Universe is queer. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a certain amount of subjectivity here, but for me, a queer show is one that is both diegetically and extradiegetically queer.

This brings me to queerbaiting, a word that seems to mean almost anything in fandom. I’ve discussed what queerbaiting is and how to define it here and here, but I wanted to come back to the definition from @rainbofiction:

“Queerbaiting is clinging to the heteronormative interpretation on the surface of things, and refusing to invalidate it, but still trying to present a queer reading in the background; metaphorically selling the hetero story from the front door, and the queer story out back.”

Queerbaiting is not necessarily ship tease, though there seems to be some conflation of the two. I’ve seen it used to discuss Sherlock, Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Voltron, Once Upon a Time, and other shows. I think queerbaiting as an idea can really only exist in an episodic format, since (save for streaming shows) you don’t get the story all at once. By being presented the story and characters bit by bit, you as a viewer don’t engage with the story as something full and complete, but instead the story as it’s being built. Because you don’t have the full story, your understanding and interpretation of the work can be affected by the text itself of course (diegetic material), but also all the extradiegetic and paratextual stuff that exists alongside the work.

Let’s think about books for a moment, specifically self-contained, standalone novels. Let’s pretend that Pride & Prejudice were not a complete story presented all at once, but rather released chapter by chapter with weeks or months passing between each chapter. If you started reading from the beginning of the work, you might make up your mind from the beginning that Darcy is the worst, and you and your friends talk about how Darcy is just awful and that Wickham fellow is soooo much better for Elizabeth. You might expect the work to continue to justify your position (coming back to epistemology), but it purposefully does not do that. Elizabeth and Darcy grow and change over the course of the novel, and end in a place of love and mutual respect.

But imagine Pride & Prejudice were released in the internet age, and you’ve spent a year (or two! Or five!) waiting for the end of the book to come, and then … this? After you’ve spent all this time engaging with people, creating fanworks, speculating about this idea of Elizabeth and Wickham, and in the end you are not rewarded by canon for your investment.

This is what queerbaiting feels like. But does that mean this is what queerbaiting is?

When I’ve discussed queerbaiting before, I’ve argued that queerbaiting is so difficult to identify because it requires two elements: 1) legitimate queer subtext, and 2) intent by the author(s) to mislead or swindle the audience. Queerbaiting is also tricky to talk about because if the work is incomplete (i.e. released episode by episode over time), you just cannot know if you’re being queerbaited.

I personally don’t want to conflate queerbaiting with shipping, because I do think they are two discrete issues, but this conflation seems to be the only way fandom talks about queerbaiting. To demonstrate, I’ll talk about The Magicians (the TV show).

To start with, The Magicians is a queer show. The show frequently challenges assumptions about heteronormativity--specifically the idea of soulmates/destiny in love, and that one person + another person = happiness and fulfillment. We even have an analog of queerness as a social taboo, with human/animal relationships in Fillory. Therefore, epistemologically, The Magicians is queer.

The Magicians also has multiple LGBT characters, at least three of which are main characters. No one on the show has told us the audience how they identify, but we have seen Margo, Eliot and Quentin express same gender attraction in one form or another. Diegetically, The Magicians is queer.

So, now that I’ve show that The Magicians is both epistemologically and diegetically queer, let’s talk about why the q-baiting word is used in discussions of this show.

This season had a landmark episode (4x05) that essentially sets up romantic feelings between two men (Quentin and Eliot) as a pillar of the narrative of this season. The boys didn’t get together (for lots of reasons) in that episode, but that episode made it clear that they both love each other, and that love is driving both of them the rest of the season. But in recent episodes, one of the boys, who has already been established to be bisexual, gets back together with his ex-girlfriend.

To summarize: The Magicians set up the expectation that Quentin and Eliot will be together in some capacity (though the show overall seems less concerned with ideas like “soulmates” and “endgame” but that’s another essay for another time), but at this point, it has not followed through. Like with my P&P example, I understand why this feels like queerbaiting, but is it?

I’m going to start with the ontological perspective: Quentin is bisexual regardless of the gender of his romantic and/or sexual partner. However, Quentin isn’t a real person, and as I’ve talked about already, ontology doesn’t really work for entities that aren’t living, breathing people. Quentin hasn’t told us the viewers that he’s bi, so all we have to go on is her behavior (something that should never ever ever be used to talk about a real life person’s sexual/gender identity)--his actions as a fictional character in a narrative.

So looking at his behavior, at this one time slice in an ongoing story, it can appear like the expectations for a romantic relationship between Quentin and Eliot will not be met. But this comes back to the problem of episodic storytelling. It is impossible at this point to say “well I guess Quentin and Eliot aren’t endgame, hence queerbaiting” because the story isn’t over. We have one more episode to go in this season and (at least) another season on the horizon. Who knows what will happen between now and then.

Additionally, as discussed before, The Magicians is epistemologically queer. The Magicians is not giving us a heteronormative story with queer subtext--the queerness is inherent to the text (and not just because there are LGBT characters). So taking shipping out of the equation for a moment, The Magicians is not queer by subtext or interpretation; The Magicians is queer because it overtly rejects heteronormativity.

Here’s some ways it does this:

Eliot (a mostly gay man) and Fen (a woman) come to care for each other despite having an arranged marriage. They have a romantic, sexual, and familial relationship.

Penny40 and Kady were in love, but Penny23 loves Julia. Relationships aren’t set in stone, there is not one person “meant” for another.

Whenever expectations of straightness and man-ness are mentioned in text (see Hyman and Penny’s supervisor in the Underworld branch)

This is a non-exhaustive list, but it demonstrates how heterosexuality and all the other social expectations that come with it are explicitly deconstructed by the show. Therefore, The Magicians cannot queerbait because it is diegetically and epistemologically queer.

Ok, so I’ve covered a lot of ground, but here are my major points:

Queer =/=  LGBT, though the two do overlap. Queerness is a rejection of heteronormativity; it is radical, deconstructionist and political.

An individual being queer is different from a relationship being queer or a show being queer.

An individual’s queerness is a matter of identity (ontology) and worldview (epistemology).

A relationship is queer through the way it operates, the way it rejects heteronormative assumptions about how relationships should operate (epistemology).

A piece of media is queer through worldview (epistemology) but how much of that is baked into the text (diegesis) is important too

Queerbaiting is often conflated with shipping (specifically shipping on non-canon m/m and f/f pairings), but they are two separate issues.

It is impossible to know if expectations about a m/m or f/f ship will be met while the story is still in progress.

A piece of media cannot queerbait if it is epistemologically queer.

The reason I sat down and wrote this was to work through my feelings about what it means to be queer, and why I have always felt a little uncomfortable with the word “queerbaiting”. Queerness is something that is constructed in many ways, and I haven’t even really discussed much of the political or community issues. Ultimately it’s up to each of us as individuals to critically engage with both fiction as it portrays queerness, and how we police each other and reinforce categories. I think this essay can provide some framework for that engagement.

This was not written to invalidate anyone’s feelings; if you personally feel let down by a piece of media, you are entitled to those feelings. However, fandom can very quickly become an echo chamber, and rather than reinforce feelings, good or bad, I offer this framework as an alternative. It can helps us answer questions like : How does media construct queerness? Is it epistemological? Is it diegetic? Does it replicate expectations of heterosexual relationships but with people of the same gender? Does it stereotype? And by answering these questions, we can get to the heart of queerbaiting, both as a feeling and as something that exists in the world.

------

This essay comes out of many many long talks about gender and sexuality and queerness with @messier51. Her perspective helped me get my thoughts in order!!!

[ardenttheories]

what are your thoughts on the way some people are determined to stick with transfem roxy headcanons despite transmasc roxy in the epilogues, but those same people will claim that anyone who has transmasc john headcanons are being transmisogynists for not sticking with june, who hasnt even showed up in any canon explicitly?

Outright frustration.

It’s been an issue in the Homestuck community for some time now that there’s a very anti-male sentiment (where we can vilify men for doing anything and everything wrong, regardless of what reasonings they might have had behind what they did) and a completely uncritical pro-female drive (which isn’t inherently bad, except that it always returns to “the women can do nothing wrong, and any of their faults are immediately forgiven even if those faults were inherently abusive”). 

It’s a sentiment where - for instance - people would defend Vriska to the death, irregardless of how bad she was or what new attrocities she’d committed, but then would completely denounce anyone who liked Dirk, failing to see the hypocracy of the two views. 

This is especially more obvious in this instance, considering that Dirk actively tried to improve himself and escape from toxic masculinity while Vriska continued to be an abuser (suggesting that women are capable of causing greivous harm without question, but men will never be good enough no matter how much they try to better themselves - which then brings in the question of why should they even bother if they’ll still be demeaned for everything they’ve ever done wrong? Especially when a woman can paralyse a man for life and still be seen as a powerful rolemodel?). 

I think a lot of it stems from two places:

A) Kate’s anti-male stance, and how loud her voice was (and still is) in the fandom - especially as a fan of Vriska who refused to see any of her faults but would completely defame any man, even those who hadn’t done anything wrong, simply for being “boring men”

B) People being fed up with toxic masculinity and desperately wanting strong, three-dimensional female characters who aren’t immediately killed off, which actually isn’t an inherent issue and is something that should be seen more in media - but can spark issues such as the ones seen above when the only good female rep you’ve been given isn’t actually that good at all, and yet you’ve got another dickhead man as the lead role

But that’s just cis men, right? It couldn’t possibly have any effect on how people see transmen. But the issue is, it really, really does. Because it’s not just “being a cis man” that’s the issue; it’s being masc-aligned at all. 

The problem really hits hard when suddenly we’re not allowed representation for transmen. When being a woman is considered so much better that we completely ignore the fact that someone identifies as transmasc. It plays into the narrative that transmen are betraying their gender, are wrong for their decision, and should be corrected - such as by ignoring Roxy’s transmasculinity in favour of a cis or transfemme reading.

Which wouldn’t be so bad, perhaps, if we were allowed to do the same in return. If our representation is taken, because perhaps people want to take the female-coded character and retain her femininity, then we should be likewise able to take the male-coded character and retain his masculinity to replace our stolen rep. 

But we’re not. We’re told that doing so is transmisogynistic - yet erasing or ignoring Roxy’s identity isn’t transphobic? The hypocracy is startling, and deeply worrying. Because it doesn’t do anything but portray transwomen as volatile fandom gatekeepers - and that is not the look we need to be giving transwomen at all. 

We’re all trans. We’re all desperate for representation. We shouldn’t be fighting each other over this - but people like Kate help to perpetuate the idea that it’s okay, and that men (even transmen) are the bane of the Earth and shouldn’t be allowed to exist, so you can just ignore that and it’s fine. 

But the fact is, you can’t in one breath claim transmisogyny for the refusal to accept the June headcanon (because, as of current, it is still just a headcanon) and then in the next overwrite any and all masc-aligned Roxy headcanons (as well as the canonicity in Meat). But as a fandom we’ve been doing it for so long to the cis characters, that it’s creeped into the trans characters as well. 

It’s easier for people to justify doing this because there’s a long history of defaming the men and uncritically defending the women with cries of misogyny or lesbophobia for pointing out hypocritical thought (which is why, I think, we don’t see any transmasc Vriska headcanons; you could imagine the sheer amount of backlash that’d come from doing it, because it’d be much harder to see what Vriska does as acceptable if she identified as male). 

So, it’s frustrating, yeah. Especially as a transman. Because our representation keeps getting overridden, and the cis men that we could associate with we’re meant to feel cripplingly guilting for sharing a gender with. There’s two transwomen in Homestuck, now, that people defend with vitriol, but the one transman we have isn’t even allowed to be ours. It’s admittedly upsetting. But it doesn’t feel like the sort of thing you can speak out about, because the fact is transwomen should be allowed to have their own representation, especially with how much struggle and strife they face both within and out of the community - just not at the price of eradicating ours. 

(This also doesn’t go into the fact that, for Homestuck, any reading should technically be validated. After all, we see that in Candy, Roxy identifies as a nonbinary woman; in Meat, he identifies as a nonbinary man. Different timelines can have different gender identities, and each one is as valid as the other! But when you claim that you MUST draw June, you’re claiming that only ONE reading is valid - and that’s just not how Homestuck works. Especially if you then draw transfemme Roxy. That doesn’t read as you trying your best to stop transmisogyny; that’s just you picking and choosing what canon is and means for your own agenda). 

(This is also why I’m starting to realise that canonising gender identities in Homestuck is just overall a bad idea. We’ve had so long to see these characters as actual blank slates to imprint our own experiences upon, that now we’re fighting to claim them all as OUR identity - rather than just allowing each to co-exist). 

[wolvesdevour]

How Not to Write Gay Stories

I’m very torn between writing two different posts and there’s a chance these may combine, so we’ll see how this goes. There are two topics that are in my mind a fair amount: gay fetishism by women authors (both in fanfic & professional writing), and how to translate fanfic writing skills to professional writing (and how it can fail). Miraculously, perhaps, the book I just read, How (Not) To Ask a Boy to Prom by SJ Goslee is a fairly good example of both of these. 

The problem with addressing gay fetishism among women authors is that when is it fetishistic versus well-meaning? It’s hard for me to say why the originators of gay slash fic wrote the way they did, but its hard to miss that when fanfic especially grew prominent, over 80% of writers were women. In Star Trek fandom, the first gay slash fic was published by a woman in 1974: A Fragment Out of Time. By 1973, 90% of ST fan writers were women. 

To clear the air a little: women writers can write good gay stories. One of series I am currently read, The Realm of the Elderlings by Robin Hobb, includes many gay men, some of which are centered POVs. I will not say she is a perfect author, but I deeply enjoy how she writes men. For a good portion of the series, she shows a man growing up: he starts as a young boy, and we see how the men around him teach him to be a man. A very good portion of the lessons stray away from toxic masculinity. He is still taught to be a man, and there are certain “this is a manly trait” aspects (although when she features women as forefront POV, she often includes very similar lessons: ultimately nothing is exclusive to one’s sex, but society is what it is and they may learn lessons differently or overcome different hurdles).

She addresses writing gay men in this interview: Here’s the thing - when I meet a person, their gender identity is most often not the most important thing about them. If we become friends, it’s not because my first impulse is, “I will be friends with you because you’re female.” I mean, there’s a lot of women I can’t stand. There’s a lot of men that I absolutely can spend hours talking to. There are a lot of people on the whole gender spectrum and whether I become friends with them or not has nothing to do with that, so when I am writing these characters, although in some ways gender can influence a plot - for instance, if you want the prince and the princess to get married and live happily ever after in a medieval setting, gender is going to influence that - but for the most part, gender is not much more important than who has blue eyes. What’s more important is who is a skilled navigator, who is tough enough to survive a bad situation, who can think on their feet and find the creative solution to a problem they haven’t encountered before, and that’s got nothing to do with gender. So it was not that I said, “Gee, I will write a book with gay characters.” It was, I’m writing a book, this character has stepped out onto the stage, he’s told me about him- or herself, and this is who they are. As I said: I’m not here to say that women cannot write gay stories. But there is also gay fetishism. I am both a gay man and a trans man; I get a lot of “OMG, you’ll love this!” and cis or straight people presenting me with things that appear inclusive or caring. I personally don’t find memes like “Steve Rogers is a transwoman!”** or whatever amusing. Am I, say, happy to see that Loki is canonically not straight nor cisgender? Yes. I love that. (Does that potentially make Victor von Doom not straight, uh, I like to think so.) I like reading LGBT+ stories, but a good portion of them may not interest me, especially if the writer isn’t part of that demographic and has a tendency to post a lot of art, writing, or discuss a lot of how hot, cute, or general appealing it is that a character or couple are LGBT. That creeps me out. I’m not alone. Very not alone. Absolutely not alone. Here’s another post, this time by a woman that I appreciate:

The worst thing,” one gay friend said, “is that [women in the slash community] aren’t listening to me. You’re not listening when I tell you that you’re being hurtful.”

What I find especially difficult to convey is the nuances to when women write gay men versus when men do. I’ve been trying to collect “gay stories written by gay men” although due to publishing bias, this can be very difficult: As a queer, trans reader, I looked forward to seeing myself in their pages. But I was surprised to find that some LGBTQ-focused stories were reflecting not me, but a straight person’s imagination of me. [Link 1]

The current transman story I like is seen in Early Riser by Jasper Fforde. The character utterly blindsided me in a great way: he never appeared “omg trans” until it was forced to come to light. I appreciate him as well, as a character, because in a harsh survival world, he is a man who survives well. I especially see a lot of “transmen are soft uwu such boi” and I despise this. I did not survive everything in my life to be diminished to pastels and cute/sweet and childish-boyish characteristics.  Similarly, as a gay man, I am not there to be pretty, to serve as a fashion guru for straight people, to be soft and pretty and welcoming. And that’s not how gay men write themselves. This isn’t how transmen write themselves. As a writer, I struggled a lot on how to depict trans characters, and my largest lesson (and I certainly hope to published one day, but who knows) is that I never saw good examples of myself because most typically they are written by straight, cis women.  So what is so wrong with Goslee’s How (Not) To Ask A Boy to Prom? (There will absolutely be spoilers.) The main character is a teen boy who has long hair, loves succulents aggressively, loves narwhals, and has no male friends. His school is supportive of gay men: a very popular football player is gay and has supportive friends, another gay teen (who becomes his boyfriend) has very supportive friends. For some reason, this gay teen is incapable to do anything for himself. He loves art, doesn’t do sports, doesn’t really connect with his foster parents, and seems overly attached to his sister. He is effectively a very flat and “soft” person. Some guys are, of course. Some gay guys are more art, less sports. But the other men? Si & Bern? They’re equally soft. Si is described as soft, beautiful, kind, sweet. He has zero personality. He is described the same way, every time, and is overly described as soft, all men are soft, it’s like they bathe in fabric softener. Bern, the “bad boy” is barely... That. He is supposed to be gruff to the main character, but for the good portion, he is like the main character (Nolan), and Si. They are all the same person, ultimately. 

Bloom might be a good comparison to How (Not) To Ask a Boy to Prom. This is written by a man (Kevin Pancetta) and illustrated by a woman (Savanna Ganucheau). I don’t like the character design. Most of the gay men I showed it to asked if at one of the guys (or both) are women. But it is a story about a frustrated kid who wants to move out of his small town to Baltimore (okay: as a Marylander who grew up in a very small town and eventually moved to Baltimore, I kinda.... Get this), but meets another man who is older, but not creepily too old for him, and its a romance & vague coming of age story. If you grew up in a small city as LGBT+, it’s hard to find your sense of self. You miss out a lot on life; I think Ari reflects that: he wants to be himself.  A lot of this enters into my point 2: The problem of being a fanfic writer, or the pitfalls of translating fanfic writing skills to professional writing. Nolan is not a person; he has no strong characteristics. We’re told he likes narwhals and succulents, he is a foster child, he’s gay, and I have trouble quantifying him the way I do Ari because he’s so devoid of personality. Si is probably the least developed character at all, as the “perfect, Apollo-esque gay football player.” Bern is maybe the most developed, going from gruff-mean guy to gay softy--a motorcycling math nerd.  The problems with fanfic writing is that it is based on knowing characters. As fanfic writers, we don’t have to nail down reality, because there’s a whole piece devoted to who they are. We’re just filling in those blanks. The author seems to primarily be a Teen Wolf fanfic writer (her bio lists “werewolves,” but her tumblr blog is very devoted to Teen Wolf, so well). This brings up another creepy pitfall, which is beyond slash fic writing, there is the aspect of word usage. If you’ve been following my vague live-reading, I’ve been posting about the massive references to “puppy” and other trends. It is creepy to read out of context. 

It seems, according to reviews, that Goslee has trouble with this in her other book, Whatever: or how junior high became totally f$@ked. She has a stream of consciousness that doesn’t explain the main character’s thoughts or the world very well. In fanfic writing, this would end up being a slow burn. “Oh, but are they really going to date?” etc. In How Not, Nolan fake-dates Bern, and googles this concept, finding fanfic works. This gets weird for me, because it’s supposed to be an inside joke, I guess? “Hey teeny nerds: fanfics” but most gay men I know have a difficult relationship with fanfic and with fan community due to fetishism. We get pressed out of spaces a fair amount because of it. (One link above, the Mary Sue one, discusses how women do this.) Of course, this is meant to be a cute, happy book, right? Alright, it’s a cute, upbeat story. Except we don’t get a very good baseline for the world. Bern & Si’s friends are supportive. We get a form of negativity from Bern’s mother, who wishes he’d date his ex-gf, I think? (Bern is bisexual.) Or maybe just date women. So is there homophobia in this world or not? We aren’t given a good sense how Nolan’s parents feel that he is gay? It seems to wholly not discuss his foster parents barring “they are aggressively competitive, Tom makes crazy food concoctions and Marla talks to him about dating Bern.” As a whole, the parents are extremely unimportant other than they provide a home and food. Are they unusual for the area? (And knowing PA, that state can have some major issues.) Or is it common in this world? Is there a reason to not hand-hold? Do they every worry about homophobia when outside school? Do the teachers say shit? There is a lot to consider. The world-building is deeply lacking. Beyond the lack of world, we get a lot of fanfic trope writing. A lot of this I’ve seen from people on my dash who are Teen Wolf fans. I used to like the show & follow TW blogs; I’m not a massive fanfic reader (*ahem* a lot of gay fetishism), but I have read it. For series like TW, you may see what I consider “animalistic tropes;” such as tackling, growling, etc. There is a lot of this. A lot of people are tackling each other to the ground, growling, and there’s this weird moment when Bern grabs the nape of Nolan’s neck that while some men do this, it felt very strange in the moment, particularly aggressively? Because the author openly admits to writing werewolf fanfic, it feels like that is what it is. For authors who write both fanfic and seek to write professionally, this is a consideration. For a gay reader, it’s really weird for a guy to grab another guy’s “nape of the neck” affectionately. (As someone who has worked around large predators, albeit primarily felids, grabbing the neck is a sexual behavior, but that just makes this weirder.) Anyways, it really struck out as weird; just very very weird. Bern is mentioned to not be into PDA (which later in the book, they do it a fair amount it seems, that is also very weird? this happens a fair amount). 

Another part is that there is a lot of use of the word puppy. It is frequents so often that I’d have to stop reading because it was grossing me out. It sounds like that author is into puppy play. This isn’t to kink shame, but this is a YA novel and she writes werewolf fanfic. It starts seemingly, albeit weirdly innocuous with moments like “Bern was smooth and graceful while I was still growing out of my puppy paws” and “She tilted her head like a puppy” and “I followed him up the stairs like a puppy.” But it keeps happening. Then people start growling at each other and it just... Gets a very specific note. Mixed in with how smooth and hairless and Adonis-like the teens are written, especially by an adult woman fan, it feels... Well... It makes my skin crawl. I’m not saying that the author means to. I’m really not trying to be like ‘Hey, guys, sexual predator?” I really, really want to address that that is not my intention. My intention is that this compounds on itself. In the links about how the slash side of fandom can make gay men uncomfortable: this is the perfect example.  I’ve been to events with fans and found myself, barring maybe my fiance, to be the only gay man there. If I’m shipping two characters, such as when I went to a TAZ photoshoot, and my fiance and I are the only gay cosplayers, and almost the only men period, whereas a lot of women are screaming about how cute Taako is, that gets uncomfortable. It’s not about this one fandom. It’s all fandoms. Every single one has had this fetishization problem. It’s why I never entered the Lord of the Rings fandom. I was in middle school and found “my first” fandom, only to see all of the fanfic about Sam/Frodo ships and it grossed me out. As a teen boy, it creeped me out, that all these men had to be sexual to each other, and as I only came across women shipping men, it made it more and more ostracizing.  Maybe I should have addressed this earlier, but: Not all fetishization is sexual. It can be romantic, too. How (Not) to Ask a Boy to Prom’s relationships are about a teen boy who doesn’t want to date or go to prom. His sister makes him ask out Si, the big popular gay guy. Nolan/the author mocks the GSA (gay-straight alliance) club. While there are problems with some GSAs*, the author, a seemingly straight woman, is mocking an LGBT+ space. There is a chance she is bisexual; I haven’t managed to find otherwise, and that’s how this will appear to many people, as she has a husband. I will also note: a bisexual woman’s experience will differ from a gay man’s experience, and sometimes LGBT+ folks need to not speak for/over each other.  Nolan ends up fake-dating Bern due to a mistake, and there’s a bit of problem I have, with how for a good portion of the book, these gay teens “need to FAKE date”. Worse to me, is that Nolan, upon realizing he likes Bern, breaks up with him and ends up sleeping (non-sexually) in a bed with his sister, deciding to go to prom together. For a straight/cis-presenting women to write this, it’s... Got a lot of different baggage to it. Especially with how idealistic (but not for gay men) she writes the characters, it gets worse and worse. It makes the gay character seem just a little less gay. His relationship with his sister is odd. It’s not “cool” to really hang out with your sister at school; I know, I had a step sister & brother. We were all roughly the same age. If these two went to prom together in the real world? They would be mocked. Also, it really makes Nolan appear not actually gay. As a gay writer, I would have him, if not go at all, go stag. The message here is: it’s better to be straight than gay and without a boyfriend. Hence how it becomes fetishistic: Nolan’s sister, both of which are older teens (around 17-18 or so) sleep together in a bed. It may not be “coded as sexual” but it is ignorant of the history that “maybe gay men can be fixed.” They even dance at prom. This is one step below asking your mother to prom. She is still his sister. It creates a narrative that he, out of the blue, dumps his boyfriend to then sleep/cuddle with his sister and they go to prom. Again, this is seen more in fanfic: we often, especially with adopted siblings, see closeness that can become romantic or sexual. I have a fair amount of friends who are adopted and this trope style is infinitely horrifying to them. It makes them feel like that society doesn’t view them as actually family. It is also a real problem: adopted family members (especially kids) have been abused by their adopted family, as if “it’s okay, they’re not actually biologically family.”

While he does eventually get back together with Bern, it’s after prom that he does this. I don’t even know why Bern accepts him. Nolan has been truly awful to this guy. Goslee doesn’t seem to understand how tenuous gay men’s statuses are. This can be held against Nolan, if not for the simple creepy fact that he sleeps and goes to prom with his sister, that he goes to prom with a woman, he may get a lot of “But are you really gay?” comments. Especially because Nolan dates only one man before going to prom with his sister (and is the one to dump his boyfriend, who he was fake-dating).

Is there more on this I could write? Yes. I probably could, but I also have to get ready to go to a movie with my fiance. So uh... Maybe there will be a part 2? We’ll see. _______ *I personally was forced out of my college’s GSA because the group was actually gay/bisexual people having orgies. So, yea, there’s some problems with certain LGBT+ spaces and being actually open to LGBT+ folks. It was also extremely transphobic and ace-phobic.  **My point with this for clarification is that: I don’t want to be bribed with “lol this person is LGBT+ cuuuute!?” headcanon or otherwise. I am fine with that form of headcanoning, or AUs, but the idea of playing with gender identity and pulling it off as cute, especially by cis or straight people is skeevy and at best, ignorant, at worst, fetishistic.  Link List: LGBT Exploitation in Fandom: we are not here for your entertainment

Fetishizing Homosexuality

gbpt boys’ ask about women readers of mlm stories

The Mary Sue’s On The Fetishization of Gay Men by Women in the Slash Community

Why Are So Many Gay Romances Written By Straight Women?

The Lack of Published Gay YA by Gay Authors? Let’s Talk About It

[mythicaldemigoddess-of-deltarune]

I Decided To Look Up About The Tumblr-Username Myself.

even though I did ask for advice about it September 13th, 2021.

I decided to look it up on September 14th and found a Youtube video that tells

about what happens when you do change your Tumblr Username.

and it appears that it really does change the URL too, so when I do change my

username it will also change the URL too.

well I really don't want any misunderstandings,

so it is for the best for me to come up with a new username.

I knew that there was going to possibility that no one would see that post asking for help right a way, regarding the effects of changing a Tumblr Username.

and I really wanted to know if it would cause the URL to change

or stay the same. 

because of the change, I will have to put down

“formerly: mythicalmarvelgirlnerd”

just so there will be no misunderstandings and those who have seen my drawings on both here and over at dev, don’t get the wrong idea or any form of bad assumptions.

a part of me wants to go with either a username that has to do with deltarune/undertale or like something that could have to do with my being Neo-Spiritual.....then again if I go with something that has to do with “Archangel of the Goddess.” there is a possibility people will just end up getting the wrong idea.....

I really do prefer to have her get custody of me, even if I still believe in God and Jesus.....but I think that when I end up talking about it too much without meaning to, people might get the wrong idea and I want to try to only talk about that kind of stuff every once in a while.

plus even if some info says that Seth’s line didn’t intermarry with daughters of Cain....that sure didn’t last very long...

I mean if it is true that Noah is a descendant of Seth,

and I did mention before that my Ancestor is Noah too (well that makes some humans of this world his descendants too.)

that would mean that Seth is my Ancestor too, well him and Cain...

maybe it could be seen as a Yin-Yang type thing, I don’t know...

I still can’t agree with Noah punishing his own grandson instead of his son for a certain act.

at least most dads now in days are much better when have balance with their feminine side and will be the ones to protect their daughters from the dangers of being hurt by those like King David’s son who hurt Tamar.

even if King David loved his son, he was not being a good parent by not punishing him for taking away Tamar’s Maidenhood against her will.

a “Maidenhood” is well just as it sounds,

even if it might mean something else for different reasons...

but it would make sense it would have to do with being a Virgin.

and if someone is called a Maiden, it means they are still a Virgin.

wait does that mean those Holy Maidens from the Fantasy Video games

would be Holy Virgins....?

I don’t think I ever thought about that until just now,

learning that “Maiden” also means “Virgin”

I think maybe later tonight, I should place my pendulum at the window.

even if it isn’t very bright right now because it is raining, I rather wait until later.

even though I did find out that I and my family, are mixed descendants of Seth and Cain, I am still me and I still have feelings.

and some times whatever I say can get misinterpreted and hurt my feelings.

though when my feelings get hurt enough I do cry....

like with happen with that toxic jerk a few years ago around 2019.

my family is Christian but I don’t think they will accept that I rather go by Neo-Spiritual...I think that a lot of people both religious and atheist,

might feel they can’t open up to their family about their new view and how they might start to question some stuff in their community.

and because they know that their family and neighbors

might not accept it, they have to hide it in the closet.

which once again, being in the closet isn’t just for your sexuality preference.

it can also have to do with your different religious belief, gender identity,

or maybe even species identity...

so being in the closet can be seen as expanded from just being about sexuality, to the other types too.

I know I can’t talk to my Mom about me being on a Gray-Ace Spectrum.

I think it would be correct to call it Gray-Ace Spectrum for me and others who are a bit different.

a Aceflux would be in the Gray Asexual Spectrum.

I also want to say that it is possible for a person to be both Aroflux

and still love watching or reading or playing video games with romance in it.

but might not feel like pursuing romance themself.

and when the Omnisexual or Omniromantic comes into play,

it could have different meanings.

like preferring guys who are more in touch with their feminine side,

nonbinary and excreta.

I hope the new season of Harley Quinn starts soon,

and I know some might disagree with what I am about to say...

but even if Doctor Psycho was 100% in the wrong for calling his ex-wife the “c” word....

he might of been a little right about Wonderwoman....being one....

I mean her and her mom, and warrior sisters could end up being the toxic feminist side....but I hope there is some improvement in the future.

 and the toxic side does show in that one movie that had to do with Flash accidentally changing history when he was running.

Wonderwoman became a a dirty shisno.

even if how she became a shisno was under different reasons...

when fighting for equality, one must not let it get into the dark side

such as the Toxic-Feminist, I love the Moxie Movie and I’m glad everything worked out in the end.

but the Main Character almost lost her way into the dark side, a toxic side that made her attack (with her words) to the wrong guys who aren’t like the monster that would be revealed in the movie who did something very bad

that can be done by not just men/boys but also women/girls too.

but she does get back on the right path and ends up helping one of the girls from her school, who was hurt by a boy who did something really bad.

plus there can be some girls who were born Intersex, but could end up being the ambiguous type so it isn’t noticed.

I’m not sure if there would be a Feminist Group who would treat girls and women who find out they are intersex, in contempt.

but that might only be the toxic groups who feel that way, and those who are more open to those who were born Intersex might be still welcomed and loved for who they are on the inside, and Not just because of them being female/intersex.

there are different types of intersex, and some might not know they are right away until much later in their life.

 with some Intersex, they could appear male on the outside but have the female reproductive organs on the inside, the same can be for those who appear female on the outside but have the male reproductive organs on the inside.

and no this would not mean they are Transmen or Transwomen.

it is just how they were born, and with some humans in the world

they can still appear female or male or even androgynous but they could still end up being one of the types of Intersex, as there isn’t just one or two types.

those who are the unnoticed intersex types, are one of the lucky ones.

because it is thanks to this, it protects them from having their choice taken away by both their parents and doctors when they get surgery without their consent or full understanding of whats going on.

that choice is theirs to make, not the parents or the rest of their family or even the doctors.

a family or the doctors should never take that choice away,

it isn’t right and it could end up harming the baby if they do the surgery too early in their life.

well I can think of another harm that can be for a baby, if they died in a past life because of some dirty shisno...

I’m gonna try to hope my pendulum is just on one of it’s pranks

when it came to asking about one of my past lives....

cause if it turns out to be true, I have a right to dislike dirty shisnos like that.

also I think the name Twilightner for the Players who play Deltarune, fits perfectly.

and the Darkners being Tulpa would make sense,

being creations of both Monsters and Humans who are known as Lightners.

and a Twilightner would between being a Darkner and Lightner, so it would make sense if the Players of Deltarune, would be called Twilightners.

I hope I can come up with the new username today, I will have to make sure to  put down my former username on my new drawing posts too, so there will be no misunderstandings.

I still have to try to hope that the double check of what my blood type

will be more successful when we try again.

I also hope that Deltarune when all the chapters are fully complete,

that it will get it’s own game card for the Nintendo Switch like Undertale did.

it be nice if Temmie’s new games ended up on the Nintendo Switch too,

like in their own Nintendo Switch Game Case with the game card for the games on the inside.

I don’t suspect Cuphead Game getting a game card for the Nintendo Switch any time soon, even if the game is downloadable.

some will make the game case (like for the Xbox.)

but a game disc wont be inside, just some info and a art of the characters from the game. 

but if the Cuphead Game already has a game card and disc for both Nintendo Switch and Xbox One, it wouldn’t hurt looking it up and keeping a eye out for them.

like waiting for a video game of Doki Doki Literature Club for the Nintendo Switch or Xbox One.

yeah the Doki Doki Literature Club Plus is on the Nintendo Switch, which I can’t wait to play it.

I’m listening to Good For You From Dear Evan Hansen.

I can think of some Ancestor Grandpas that that song would fit perfectly.

with their descendants singing it to them.

also I did do a fan art that had a intersex Imp, which I want to be like a Crossover type OC, like a Hazbin Hotel x Helluva Boss.

I did check to see if there were other Imps in the show

that had the same type of horns as them, but so far none.

so the idea of Intersex Imps having horns that can appear a bit different than the female and male horns, could hint they were born Intersex.

Millie’s sister is one of the transwomen characters in Helluva Boss.

I’m not sure how many they will be, but it be nice if Nonbinary was added.

some who are Nonbinary will go by them/they,

while some will still go by he/him or she/her,

and if a Nonbinary person ends up becoming Trans too,

they could have a bigender identity.

I guess I’m still in the Chrysalis stage,

like I could still go by Gyno-Agender

but what if I’m more of a Feminine-Nonbinary..?

I have seen the Gyno-Agender as type of bigender Identity...

and I wonder if I do figure out that I am more Feminine-Nonbinary,

would that still make me bigender....?

I think I will go watch Steven Universe Movie after I post this...

I will still stay signed in, as I do plan to check out some stuff on here.

plus maybe while watching the movie I can decide on a new username.

 anyway like I said, knowing it was possible that some might not of seen that post right away and well I had decided to look up the info about the whole changing my tumblr username myself.

which did help, so if I decide on a new username today

will change it later maybe after I watch Steven Universe Movie

and check out some stuff on here too.

is it weird I can’t help but think if there was Goddess parody of

“Let Us Adore You”

that Athena would be the Yellow Diamond,

Selena would be Blue Diamond,

and Hera would be White Diamond...?

and given how White acted before, Hera would be perfect for the role. 

as to who would be the Pink Diamond,

I would say one of the Earth Goddesses.

I can’t help but think that Steven’s parents

were kind of Toxic, yeah they were good but they were also bad at the same time.

and Steven did point this out when talking about his Mom after finding out her secret, as well as pointed out that his dad is just like her.

even if Greg is a good dad in some points, he was still bad at the points that he did neglect Steven....

I mean not neglect in the other sense, but more like in all the times he made money in his car wash and even got all that money from Sourcream’s Bio-Dad.

he never once took Steven to see a doctor or get him into school

or get him a home school tutor.

yeah Pearl, Garnet and Amethyst can help him with gem stuff...

but Steven is still half-human, and I can’t help but be disappointed in Greg

when he just says “your a gem” and not thinking that Steven might need both his halves cared for equally.

it was good that Doctor Maheswaran saw Steven when she did,

and it was good that she could see that Greg has been neglectful to Steven’s needs, like needing to see a doctor for one.

some family who aren’t able to go to a doctor or to a school,

have a good excuse and at times will end up getting help with that.

Greg might of had a bad relationship with his parents,

but it doesn’t mean he was 100% in the right.

maybe like only partly....I understand he would need to hide his music from them.

but it is possible in theory, that the reason why he wasn’t allowed to have music.

might have to do with one of his parents having sensitive hearing

and couldn’t take very loud music if Greg had a habit of playing his music really loud and not given the consideration that it might be hurting one of his parents.

if there was a AU where after Steven left Beach City to go live with his Father’s parents in secret but still travel at times....

then if Steven told his grandparents about his life and how his dad raised him but at same time didn’t....

I guess his Grandparents could end up becoming accepting that at least he had his Mother’s friends to raise him but be a bit disappointed they didn’t tend to the other needs he needed in his life, but could point out they still had good hearts.

but could still express disappointment in Greg,

who knows most of how Earth is like and could of helped their Grandson’s adoptive mother figures more.

there can be two sides to every story, and if there is a canon comic

where Greg goes to make up and reconnect with his parents after he fully realizes what they did to him, is just what he was doing to Steven but still being slightly different.

even Blue started to realize her mistake with handling Pink.

but even if Pink didn’t deserve most of her punishments,

but with how Pink acted most of the time, like with her destructive powers...

some of the punishments might of been what she deserved.

she was the first gem to become a Mother,

showing that it is possible for sexless/feminine identity polymorphic gem humanoids, to create a new life without taking life from organic life.

anyway I’m gonna go watch Steven Universe Movie now.

see ya later and stay safe everyone.           

[memorybypass]

Acceptance

Writing this now since I'm drawing openly "different" characters...

I. Accept. You.

All of you. Every single person out there, of every gender and every sexuality and every view and every body type and every difference. You are valid, your gender is valid, your sexuality is valid, your opinions are valid.

I know often I can come off as insensitive or uncaring, but I'm not. I come off this way because I will usually instantly just accept who you are. There are the few exceptions where it'll be less instantaneous, but that's only an illusion since all I'm doing is making certain I know which pronoun to call you. But me not making a big deal out of it isn't me invalidating you, it's just the fact I already have accepted you.

Transmen are men, transwomen are women, genderless are genderless, genderfluid are whatever genders they feel at that moment.

To me, you just are.

I see you as what you say you are, not what your body or what others claim you are.

Only you know who you are.

And I accept this.

I just wanted to let people know because I've gotten in trouble for this in the past... Usually with people who claim to be "morally correct" about "cripples." I've been screamed at countless times for not understanding why they claimed I had to be different towards someone with any kind of "disability" or why they claimed I had to help them like they were some infant. Apparently I was being "insensitive" for saying someone missing a limb was still a perfectly capable person who didn't need me doing everything for them just because they were born different. (Literally all I did was treat them exactly like I treat everyone else. I'll treat them different if they want to be treated differently, but what person wants to be treated broken when they aren't?)

Sorry, went a bit off on a tangent there. My point being, I treat everyone the same and accept you for who you are.

Men shouldn't hit women, women shouldn't hit men, no gender should hit any gender.

All clothes and sports and styles and hair are for everyone of every gender and every age.

Someone with no legs doesn't need your help getting around, someone with no hands doesn't need your help grabbing things. If they do they'll ask. But if they don't ask, chances are they're perfectly capable of doing it theirselves and probably would prefer to.

Someone who is transgender doesn't need you reminding them they were born with a different name, or with the wrong parts. I'm pretty sure they fucking know.

Someone who is genderless doesn't need you trying to berate them into thinking otherwise.

Some who is genderfluid doesn't need you berating them either.

Every person in the world is different. I'm different, you're different. Everyone is different.

And I accept you.

I believe you.

I support you.

If I come off as an asshole, it's nothing personal. I'm probably just an asshole.

[discourseboyfriends]

first, I just want to say THANK YOU for being a discourse blog that actually explains things. and second... do you think bisexuality and pansexuality are the same thing?

Lamb: We had another person ask about pansexual discourse, so I hope this’ll give them an answer too!

Now to get to the answer, I didn’t actually even know there was discourse about this before you guys brought it up and I asked Wolf to tell me what exactly you meant. I had somehow managed to avoid all of this discourse before, but I looked into it a lot and....I never thought bisexuality and pansexuality as the same thing at all. For me, bisexuality was always attraction specifically to both men and women, and pansexuality was attraction to the person no matter if they’re a woman, man or nonbinary, I always understood pansexuality as being more based on personality etc. rather than the gender of the person? I could be wrong though.

I also don’t like what I’ve seen with people being like “OH, well I’m attracted to women and TRANSMEN” or “Well, I like men and TRANSWOMEN” like...That’s gross and super fetishistic. Why the fuck would you separate it like that?? Transmen are men and transwomen are women?? Stop it??

Wolf: With how long I’ve been in LGBTQ+ spaces, I’ve seen this discourse through quite a bit. I remember when pansexuality was this really rare identity that hardly anyone knew of (I’ll add that this had nothing to do with a surge of recognition for nonbinary genders, nonbinary genders were slightly less common, but already pretty widely recognized in the circles I ran with), all the way to now, and everything inbetween.

Because of how long I’ve been in these circles, I’ve been exposed to just about every definition of both of these sexualities, so I’ll go off on some of them:

Some say that pansexuality includes trans people and nonbinary people, which I know I don’t need to clarify as being highly transphobic. (Not to mention that plenty of “monosexual” people are still interested in trans people and nb people)

Some people argue that “Bi” only means two, so you can be attracted to men and women, OR women and nonbinary people, OR men and nonbinary people, which is... just straight up really erasing of most people’s experiences of being bisexual. MOST bi people I’ve talked to view their sexuality as including nb genders, and are uncomfortable having people insist that they HAVE to identify as pan because of this.

Others argue that bi includes a preference for one gender over the others, while pan means there’s absolutely NO preference for any one gender over the others, but that doesn’t work either considering I’ve seen PLENTY of people who id as pan and have a preference, or as bi with no preference.

There’s also the idea that bi includes only men and women (cis or trans doesn’t matter, just that they’re a binary gender) and pan includes all other genders as well, but... again, I’ve seen plenty of bi people who are attracted to nb people.

There’s also the idea that “pan means attracted to hearts not parts!” which I shouldn’t have to explain as being bananas transphobic and homophobic. (If you genuinely need an explanation lmk, but I feel like it’s a given)

Really, in my eyes, there isn’t much difference? It’s really just a matter of what you like being called. Ideally, I think maybe the idea that ‘pan’ means no preference and ‘bi’ would include a preference? But since so many people “break” this rule, it really isn’t a functional way to distinguish between the two.

tl;dr: I don’t disrespect anyone who wants to use pan as a label, but only as long as you don’t try to justify it by disrespecting others.

[vulva-o-queef]

@hestiaq​ (making a new post because I don’t want to keep reblogging a long threat)

I’m really sorry for what you were put through. I sincerely hope you’re in a better situation now and doing okay. That’s horrific.

I remember the Ted Bundy bit you’re talking about- and she’s…. honestly quite right? If enough men have NPD/ASPD a few of them are going to seem intelligible, I think. I don’t really understand what you’re saying about Ted Bundy- if it’s tongue in cheek or not.

Okay, like I said, I haven’t seen this post she made. necromancerdoll just said that larps said sociopaths/psychopaths “can’t perform well in society/function with others.” I know aspd and being a sociopath are often considered the same thing, and I know a lot of them are pretty transparent assholes. Psychopathy isn’t a formal diagnosis at all, but criminal psychologists do use the term, and there’s a pretty solid consensus on what it means. Some people say psychopaths are a subset of sociopaths, and other people say it’s a similar but distinct thing, but in either case, one of the main characteristics of a psychopath (which a sociopath doesn’t, or doesn’t always have) is that they’re smooth and charming, and they use those traits to manipulate others.

My comment about Ted Bundy was sarcastic (and probably not in very good faith, but also wasn’t really related to the main point of all this), because saying psychopaths “can’t perform well in society/function with others” is the opposite of the truth. Ted Bundy was charming, socially adept, approachable, and likable, which was exactly how he managed to lure in many of his victims. He would put on a fake cast and ask women to help him get things into his car, which is what that scene from silence of the lambs is based on. Larps might be totally aware of all that and just phrased something too broadly. The only way it would be relevant to the rest of what I’m saying is, if she really meant to say that psychopaths are socially inept, it would be another example of how she tries to speak as an authority on mental disorders she doesn’t understand. Mostly I was just poking fun.

Women are over-diagnosed. But I don’t understand how Larps pointing out shitty behavior is the same as “diagnosing everyone”. Also, she’s talked about how borderline personality is over-diagnosed and often ascribed to women who are dealing with trauma. She’s also not talking about it from a “I don’t personally like them” only- “these people” are people who are cruel and vicious and play victim when called out on their cruel vicious behavior.

Clearly, you and I interpret the things she says about bpd and ‘cluster b’ in general very differently. For one, diagnosing anyone over the internet is absurd. In my first response to her, I did agree that she has made some good points, mostly about the link between autogynephilia and narcissism. But that’s about noticing an overarching theme within a specific population, and there’s already a decent amount of academic writing about that link. Case studies done by real psychologists. Actual studies done with controls and statistics and so on. And even with stuff like fucking “trans lesbian” dating profiles that larps points out herself, there is some solid evidence there due to the sheer repetition of entitled attitudes, fetishism, etc, the list goes on. My issue is with the way she thinks she understands BPD when she clearly doesn’t, how she applies “cluster b” or bpd to an awful lot of people, largely young ‘transmen’ or radfems she doesn’t like, and how whenever anyone she’s put down for having BPD tells her to cut it out, or tells her that she’s wrong about them, she dismisses anything they have to say by citing “people with bpd are insane,” or telling them they’re being irrational due to their disorder. Basically she’s using it as a shield to avoid being held accountable for the things she says. “Anyone who’s telling me borderline people aren’t irrational is only saying that because they’re borderline, and therefore they’re irrational!” I’m not saying she’s diagnosing “everyone.” And regarding transmen specifically, there are a lot of psychological factors involved in that situation, and for someone who’s so vocal about the cultlike, exploitative, backwards nature of the trans movement, you’d think she would understand how absurd and frankly just plain egotistical it is to think she can simplify all of those psychological factors and dynamics down to “cluster b.” Again - remember that she’s talking about people she’s never met in her life, usually judging from one blog description, a handful of posts, or sometimes nothing more than a fucking selfie.

Even as a younger girl with supposed “BPD” (who even identified with the label)- I wouldn’t have found this stuff offensive, and if it did (which I might have, and sometimes still do)- it’s really that easy to log off or go outside.

That’s good for you, and I respect your perspective. And you’re right, I could just log off and ignore what larps is saying. You can say that about anything anyone says on the internet, and technically it’s true. But I didn’t. The things she’s saying are ignorant, I find them personally hurtful, and I think she’s spreading misinformation, harmful stereotypes, and regressive thinking. I see that she’s saying dehumanizing and belittling things to women on this site who deserve respect, and probably worst of all, I see that there are a lot of people who look up to her, ask her for advice, sometimes idolize her a bit, and many of them will believe pretty much anything she says. She’s feeding them bullshit and some really vile ideas about mental health stigma, and how people with certain disorders (mainly BPD) deserve to be treated. I don’t think she’s the devil incarnate, and I don’t think she’s out here ruining lives and destroying families. I think she’s an asshole with an inflated sense of her own insight and knowledge, and I decided to say something. I could have logged off, but in this case, I didn’t. That’s all.

...I don’t understand how Larps memeing on a Tumblr blog and often posting insightful ideas about personality disorders is “insulting, ignorant, and dehumanizing”.

Yeah I don’t know what you consider “insightful,” but posting the definition of “insane” and copy-pasting a list of bpd symptoms and saying “see? these people are insane,” and tagging her response to my post with #have u ever noticed how all of these people have personality disorders (callback to “anyone who’s telling me borderline people aren’t irrational is only saying that because they’re borderline, and therefore they’re irrational!”) ...doesn’t quite cut it in my book.

She doesn���t bring up cluster b whenever she “feels” someone is acting unreasonable and dramatic- they… are unreasonable and dramatic- at least in whatever context, and people don’t have to dig deep to see who someone really is to be able to just say “no that’s insane, bye”.

Mmmm... I realize you see the situation differently from me, but am I acting insane? I mean, at worst, I’m making the undeniably blunt way she talks to people into something bigger than it needs to be. And yeah, I know... classic cluster b, amiright? But even if that’s the case, even if I’m misinterpreting her views, surely you can see where I’m coming from. And there are quite a few people who have the same objections that I do (mostly radfems, radfem adjacent women, terves, etc.). When she wrote that tag #have u ever noticed how all of these people have personality disorders, isn’t it clear that she was referring to me, as well as the rest of the radfemmish women who have been speaking against this behavior from her lately? Isn’t she making an assumption that I have a personality disorder (which I do not)? 

Do you really think my objection to the way larps talks about bpd is an indication that I have a personality disorder, and that I’m insane? Unreasonable at worst. But yes, she is absolutely using the excuse that those who object to her saying borderline people are irrational are saying so because they’re borderline/irrational. And like I said, I’m hardly the only example of her saying things like this. Someone just reblogged the original post of all of this and said #I just blocked larps bcuz shes been reblogging random old posts from me calling me a cluster b as bait #as far as I know I’m the only quote on quote crazy bihet that doesn’t have a pd? Someone else wrote #I really looked up to larps hence I’m so torn about this #if I didn’t believe she was a smart and decent well meaning person I wouldn’t care. That’s just on that particular post, within the last few hours.

People with personality disorders are diagnosed because they’re anti social and cause harm to those they “love”/interact with and the cluster b community (that I hung around) spend most of their time groveling in misery- despite often constructing their own fantastical narrative of people horrifically abusing them and demanding to be coddled for every emotion.

Some of them, yeah. Not all of them, and not enough to justify making assumptions about people you’ve never met.

What I mean is- the pain that they’re feeling is an offense to ego a LOT of the time. And other’s shouldn’t have to walk around eggshells to make sure that they don’t injure others egos.

Agreed.

Like it’s not real, rudfems don’t enable or contribute to violence against women. None of these women, no matter how mean they are, contributed to the pain I experienced in childhood for being called BPD- actually it was always men and handmaidens.

I didn’t accuse larps, or any other ‘rudefem’ of contributing to violence against women. I know that men were the reason ‘hysteria’ could be diagnosed in the past, and I know that men are the reason bpd is being overdiagnosed in women today. And I’m honestly not even trying to say larps is being misogynistic to the women she says this stuff to (though re-reading, I realize it could easily sound that way). Misogyny or not, dismissing someone’s perfectly measured, reasonable objection as irrational just because they have a bpd diagnosis - which in several cases, dr. larps diagnosed all by herself - is unacceptable, is the same pattern and circular justification used on ‘hysterical’ women in the past, and is particularly bad because, as we agree, bpd is too often being diagnosed as the new version of hysteria. She’s re-enforcing age-old stereotypes about mental illness, and she’s buying into it so completely that she really believes that borderline people are so unreliable that she knows what’s going on in their heads better than they do. Hence saying that borderline people objecting to her backwards stereotyping are doing so out of a kneejerk reaction to a damaged ego, rather than because they know what she’s saying is false.

Also - she isn’t talking about everyone with “diagnosed” BPD.

If that’s what she means, then she’s the one who needs to say it, not you. Again, I respect that you have a different view of this, and I understand your perspective, I can’t believe what others say about her intentions and supposed read-between-the-lines distinctions, when she doesn’t say it herself, and the things she says and the way she acts do not communicate what you’re saying about her.

Meaning, there’s a distinction between people who have been diagnosed and are suffering, and people who have been diagnosed (or not) and are cruel and have a total lack of insight and disregard for other people.

Mental health is complicated. You can’t divide people with bpd into two clean categories like that. That’s not how it works. And you CERTAINLY can’t lump people into the “bad” category simply because they don’t like how you talk about their disorder. You can’t see someone objecting to what you’re saying and assume that YOU know that they’re coming from a “total lack of insight.” People are not psychic. Larps is using the fact that some people with pds have a lack of self-awareness to dodge accountability when it’s convenient for her. It’s complete circular logic - something you would think she would be above, no? “they’re irrational, and when they complain about me calling them irrational, I can shut them down by saying that any complaint they make is irrational.” I know I keep saying this, but it’s true. In my first comment, I pointed out that this is her pattern, and what was her response? hashtag have u ever noticed how all these people have personality disorders. fucking exactly what I said her response would be, because that’s the only excuse she has. 

And yes, insight is a qualifying factor that “””exonerates”””” (quite a loaded word in this context????) someone from being “really” BPD. The thing about BPD is that they will not (or cannot) change- like it’s not a fixed part of your personality, and if it is- you deserve to be called out, and if it isn’t and you still behave like that… you deserve to be called out, still.

Again, no. If this is the case, then we need to make a second definition to separate “REALLY bpd” from “sorta bpd,” since currently they both meet the same diagnostic criteria. It’s not up to you, or larps, to create definitive new categories of mental illness.

I went from being told I had “borderline tendencies” to being diagnosed with full BPD, to basically nothing at all, because I became aware of those patterns, learned how to be objective about my thoughts and emotions, and practiced resisting them to the point where they only show up if I’m already in a really bad state. I don’t consider myself to have - or to have had - a personality disorder, because I’ve almost completely gotten rid of those mental reactions. But I know people who do have BPD, who are self aware, who are trying the same things I did, but the difference is that even though they now have the tools to keep them in check, those mental and emotional reactions are still present for them, and likely always will be. To say they don’t REALLY have bpd because they’re able to control it is frankly insulting. “If you’ve been able to improve it through treatment, you never really had it in the first place.” I know that’s not how you meant it, but that’s what it boils down to.

BPD is not defined by a lack of self-awareness. It’s a pattern of ingrained emotional and mental reactions (and, subsequently, behaviors). These often develop as a method of self defense against external abuse. Or sometimes there’s no abuse and it’s there anyways. The cause isn’t always clear. But the criteria calling these symptoms “pervasive” doesn’t mean the individual is unaware of them. People who know they have bpd, and who are working on treating their bpd still have bpd.

“...deserve to be called out”... it’s not larps’ business to “call someone out” for having bpd. She can call someone out for acting like a shithead, but simply having bpd is not a flaw that needs to be criticized. Your phrasing makes it seem like that’s what you’re saying, and although I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant, that’s what larps seems to think.

Not only are neither you nor larps qualified to determine the “category” of bpd that people on the internet who you’ve never met fall into, but even IF that’s how she sees it, then, again, she needs to say that herself, and she needs to reflect that view in the way she treats people.

But to conclude, she really does make that explicitly clear that she doesn’t think everyone with BPD is a “screeching, manipulative, hysteric”.

Where

You made a bunch of excuses for her and I still have no reason to believe any of it is true

However, I’m mostly speaking for myself here because I’ve been hanging around tungle for too long and I mostly want to say that this all doesn’t really matter. Like, so many feminists on here ramble on about “but what about bpd women who get misdiagnosed?” yeah I didn’t face brutality at the hands of snarky women on the internet. These are not the people that even enabled the violence that me or many other women with trauma face.

Again, I didn’t say that. I don’t think she’s destroying lives either, I was just frustrated, saw that many other women are frustrated about her too, and I felt like saying something, so I did. That is the extent of my motivations here. I do think that she is spreading harmful stereotypes and misinformation, but I’m under no delusion that she is causing damage on a massive scale. She is, however, just one more raindrop in the proverbial ocean of mental health stigma. Insignificant as a single drop may be, surely it’s no less significant than any of those people with bpd whose bad behavior you say should be called out. If it’s larps’ business to call them out, then it’s just as much my business to call her out.

It’s not up to her and other women like her to clarify every single thing they say- people DO generalize and we should be able to communicate without having to specify for everyone.

I’m not asking her to clarify “every single thing” she says, I’m asking her to stop acting like a shithead, labeling people she’s never met, acting like she’s an authority on personality disorders, and using her actually wildly skewed perception of these disorders which is steeped in regressive, harmful, and demeaning stigma and stereotypes about mental illness in order to manipulate her way out of being held accountable for any of it. I’m not telling her to stop generalizing for the purpose of communication, I’m asking her to stop making inaccurate generalizations based on stereotypes, and to stop using “cluster b” as a catch-all for bad behavior. Just because someone is a shithead, or unreasonable, or overdramatic, doesn’t make them borderline, and it’s insulting to the people with bpd who are truly good people, who also have to deal with their disorder being an internet trend for self-dx’ers to milk sympathy and excuse their abusive behavior (sounds just like what larps would diagnose as cluster b, I know, but it turns out that many people who don’t have bpd exhibit these traits as well), deal with shitty treatment from healthcare providers who read the diagnosis and think they know everything about you before you even walk in the door (back when I had the ‘full bpd’ diagnosis, a therapist said to my face that people with bpd were considered ‘used goods,’ and my current psychiatrist treats me with an absurd and totally unjustified level of suspicion), deal with the massively pervasive stereotypes everyone else holds about bpd (ranging from ‘serial killer’ to ‘used goods’ to ‘fake trend on the internet to get attention’), as well as dealing with - oh yeah - the actual fucking disorder, as well as often comorbid cases of PTSD, depression, anxiety, bipolar, etc.

I’m just saying, it would be a lot more effective and hurt a lot less people you supposedly didn’t mean to target if you just called out the actual behavior instead of “calling out” a disorder. Additionally, I’m pretty sure that people with bpd who do lack self awareness are far more likely to respond to direct criticisms of their behavioral patterns than they are to respond to the label of bpd being “called out.” They’d just see the latter as more fuel for self-pity. It’s a little harder to justify being the victim of someone saying “hey stop being abusive.”

And if that’s not enough reasons for you, consider: people who have shitty behaviors who don’t have a cluster b disorder (yes, larps, they exist) are just gonna hear criticisms of a disorder they don’t have and brush it right off. Call out the actual behavior, and there’s a chance they might recognize it in themselves. It’s like a quadruple win.

A hallmark of bpd/npd/aspd/hpd is having no insight into that, that people say shit, and you take what you can and leave it-her, or me, or anyone else mincing that up….. doesn’t help bpd women live in a world where nobody is going to mince anything up ever. It did not help me when people coddled me, and I intuitively knew that and was deeply frustrated with it.

You’re right that it doesn’t help to have people make excuses for you or ‘coddle’ you. But not being unfair and pushing harmful stigma is not the same thing as “coddling.” Nor is “not mincing” words the same thing as saying things that are untrue, unfair, dismissive, and insulting. Much like Trump saying blatantly racist things is NOT “just telling it like it is.” (and no I’m not comparing you or larps to trump or calling anyone racist. except trump)

Many of the women who have ‘spoken up’ about larps on tungle, I’ve seen on other mediums (fb, wordpress) and they’re often just blatantly manipulative

Really? Am I being blatantly manipulative? Or insane? And, to reiterate, is what I’ve said on her post enough for her to assume that I - and anyone else raising these issues with her - ALL have personality disorders? Is it justification for her to say that I’m “glorifying” ASPD/BPD?

and will never have any insight to the fact that all of this is really a non-issue

I gave you several examples above, and here's your treasure trove:

https://larpsandtherealgirl.tumblr.com/search/cluster%20b

Notice how she loves agreeing with everyone saying they’ve been abused by someone with a cluster b disorder, or otherwise says something negative about a person/people with a cluster b disorder, makes sweeping generalizations and basically uses “cluster b” with the same tone that you would call someone an asshole - that is to say, using the same logical standards of “you said some shit I thought was rude, so I think you’re an asshole & I’m going to call you one” when talking about psychological medical diagnoses?

Yeah, occasionally she claims she’s only talking about The Bad Ones, but that’s a pretty thin excuse when 99% of the time you make no attempt to differentiate, and post things like screenshotted symptoms (which - if the “good ones” with that disorder actually have that disorder - would apply to the “good ones” too) with captions like “these people are insane.”

Again, I realize you see the things she says very differently from me, but surely you can see where I’m coming from. And I would hope that you can see that my having this perspective does not justify saying I have a personality disorder, that I am insane, or that I am “glorifying” ASPD and NPD. I would hope that the similar shit she’s said about several other women who said things similar to what I said would also strike you as unjustified. You can make excuses that she wasn’t literally diagnosing me with a personality disorder, but you can’t make that excuse every single time she says something like this.

but instead “leave radical feminism because it’s so full of mean lesbian separatists” and make huge texts about it everywhere else and how rfeminism is a cult.

Okay... this is an entirely separate and irrelevant subject and I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up. I mean it sounds like you’re saying “people who don’t like being told they’re insane are just butthurt kek” which I really hope is not what you’re saying. I’m pretty sure there are plenty of radical women who would object to being called insane and having their opinions dismissed because of a mental health diagnosis, who would raise their objections and still believe in their politics, probably due to the fact that - in this context - those things have virtually nothing to do with one another.

My point is- she’s not just saying ppl who criticize her have bpd- they often do because people with personality disorders come out of the woodwork to be hideously angry at anyone who calls them abusive or “wrong” and “bad” (whatever that means at any given moment).

In summary: I appreciate and respect that you interpret the things larps says in a very different way, and I’m not trying to tell you that you should be hurt or anything like that. But I can’t accept what I see as excuses that you’re making for her, since she doesn’t offer any of those explanations herself, and I don’t see any evidence of the intentions you’re attributing to her, in her own words or behavior.

At the end of the day, larps is the only person who can speak for larps’ intentions (much like the people whose criticisms larps deflects by claiming they’re motivated by irrational emotion and a threatened victim complex SHOULD be the only ones who can speak for their intentions).

And at the end of the day, larps didn’t show anything but disrespect and a total unwillingness to even consider that the way she speaks to, and treats, people with bpd and people who criticize her portrayal and internet-diagnosing of bpd, might not be 100% faultless.

At the end of the day, larps read what I had to say about her dismissive attitude and manipulative, circular justification for avoiding accountability. Her response was to double down on calling people with borderline “insane,” and double down on her own belief that googling a list of symptoms makes her an expert on psychology, as well as an expert on the thoughts in other peoples’ heads. She used the exact circular, dismissive excuse I was calling out, yet again said that the people criticizing her were all doing so because of their - well “our,” I should say, since she diagnosed me - personality disorders, rather than their actual thoughts, opinions, and perfectly reasonable objections. And then she answered a bunch of messages laughing about how crazy and terrible “cluster b”s are. No, she didn’t literally say “EVERY SINGLE PERSON with bpd is like this,” but come on. She’s not the only person who can recognize patterns of behavior.