#words have meaning and I never wanted to disrespect either of the identities of lesbian or bisexual women

[artemismatchalatte]

I was going to leave this in the tags of a repost but I decided that this should probably be it's own post. It was jokingly referring to bad bisexual representation and not jokingly that is me. I won't repost the post because it's not really the point of what I'm going to say and I don't want to annoy the original poster with my comments.

People seem to assume bisexuals are always poly and we're not. I hate the whole unicorn hunting trend on dating sites. It gives me major ick.

I have had some issues in dealing with my own sexuality that I don't extend to other people (some of it is probably due to my having bipolar and how I cope with it). Bipolar disorder can seriously fuck with your perceptions of everything so it does not help. Neither did the random waves of hypersexuality that I used to experience (haven't in a long time fortunately!).

This is probably going to sound crazy but I'm not comfortable with my own attraction to men. I hate the power imbalance if I'm being honest. I'm much less disturbed by my attraction to other women. I thought for a while, especially after reading about comp het and lesbian experiences that I might have been late in life lesbian (if 29 is late?). Some of their stories really resonated with me so I thought maybe that I was a lesbian too.

But I found out I'm not because I realized I'd still date men. I found a guy on one of the lgbt dating sites I was using. It didn't last but I knew then I couldn't be a lesbian if I'd still date a man. So I am bisexual. I don't really like that because it feels as if some people might try to victimize me because of my bisexuality. It feels like a vulnerability rather than a strength but maybe I just need time to get over that feeling. (I have more to say on this but I'll save it for later if I'm ever going to post on this again at all).

I want to be clear that I never wanted to ever identify as both a lesbian and a bisexual woman at the same time because that's both impossible and would damage both communities. I see a lot of 'bi lesbian' nonsense these days and it's very disconcerting behavior.

Lesbians have never been interested in men and do not have any attraction towards them. Bisexuals like both men and women. Bisexual women and lesbians are both Sapphic- meaning we both are attracted to other women. I just feel like labels actually mean something and it's disrespectful to try to act like words don't have any meaning.

I support lesbians and bisexuals. I also have personal issues with my own sexuality but I support other people trying to find themselves. Questioning is also a valid identity. It sometimes takes time to learn who you really are.

[woman-loving]

“The SAM” and its critics

I guess I won’t make it a whole thing, but here are my thoughts on the “split attraction model.” (NB: This perspective is based on my own recollections and interpretations, but I don’t know all things. Different versions of the story may exist.)

To begin with, the term “split attraction model” was coined circa May 2015 by critics who were trying to name a phenomenon they took issue with. Going forward, “critics” will refer to this group who first coined the term, but they are not the only ones who criticize the language, components, or universalism of the “split attraction model.” (Example from theacetheist with lots of links.) The particular criticisms I’m concerned with developed around the time that monosexism discourse was dying down, and a group that had been critical of “monosexism” was exploring new topics to complain about. (I was one of the complainers, to be clear; that is not a disavowal.) Here are a couple sample posts from May-July 2015: one, two, three, four. Note the anons mentioning they can’t find anything about the “split attraction model”--that’s because there was nothing else written using that language!

Grumblings were eventually arranged into the sequence of words, “split attraction model,” and that term took off among critics who used it as a vague gesture toward a set of grievances. As I remember it, one of the primary targets was the paired sexual-romantic identity format, e.g. naming one’s orientation as --sexual --romantic. Also as I remember it, criticisms were primarily concerned with its use beyond ace/aro people, focusing on what might be considered bi-range “mixed orientations” like “bisexual heteromantic” or “homosexual biromantic.” It wasn’t too uncommon to see people say that these paired identities could work for ace or aro people, but didn’t otherwise make sense.

I believe connections were also made between these identities and the creation and cataloguing of specialized identities that detailed to whom/what and how/whether one experienced attraction. The people who advanced or approved of these projects, and the approach to sexuality/gender that seemed to motivate them, were scorned as “mogai.” Although I too scorned “mogais,” I never looked too closely at any “mogai” blogs; “mogai” was a category based mostly on impressions. The use of other subtypes of attraction (e.g. sensual, aesthetic, platonic, which may have been previously popularized among ace/aro people) as the basis for orientation-like labels such as “heteroaesthetic” or “homosensual” also provoked consternation, although I couldn’t tell you if these labels were ever seriously adopted by a significant number of people. As I understand it, “romantic orientation” was also popularized among aces, although this and other concepts that took inspiration from it were being used on tumblr by a mixed and overlapping group of ace/aro/lgbtq people.

Sometimes when critics invoked the “split attraction model,” they were imagining all of this as a single model of orientation, in which (they presumed) a “complete” orientation (as they were used to thinking of it) would entail listing out --sexual --romantic --sensual --aesthetic and whatever other dimensions people created. But I think that often times critics would be thinking mainly of the paired sexual-romantic identity format, which was more commonly used.

The objections were many. A lot of these revolved around the way “sexual orientation” and --sexual terms were defined by people who also used “romantic orientation,” --romantic terms, and other parallel dimensions of orientation and identity.

Critics were used to “sexual orientation” and “sexuality” naming something that encompassed erotic/sexual, emotional/romantic (e.g. being “in love”), and social/kinship (e.g. dating, marriage) elements. Likewise, they understood terms like “bisexual,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual,” as well as “gay” and “lesbian,” as inclusive of all these elements. And, in fact, this is the typical way in which these terms are used by gay/bi people and activists and by almost anyone writing about these subjects in a serious way. Gay/bi people have often had to demand recognition for the emotional and social aspects of their relationships and desires, or (alternately) for the sexual aspects, and so there was some significance attached to affirmation of their integration. Critics didn’t believe that all elements always occurred together, however. There's general recognition that sexual interest can occur apart from being “in love.” And while there’s more social skepticism over this possibility, many of these critics would have also agreed that you could be “in love” without sexual interest. (Some critics identified as ace and/or sex-repulsed.)

Critics sensed that when “sexual orientation” and --sexual terms were being paired/contrasted with “romantic orientation” and --romantic terms (and others), the meaning of the former were narrowed to only refer to specifically sexual and not emotional/social components. And I think you can, in fact, see that reflected in how "sexual orientation” is explained by some people who use both orientations (and others). A while back I compiled a sample of definitions of “sexual orientation” from a few college LGBTQ groups and compared them with a few definitions from AVEN and AVENwiki, and the difference is apparent. (Some of those entries have sense been edited in response to my post.)

So I think there was a real difference in how people were using “sexual orientation” and --sexual identity terms. The critics were using them in the broader, mainstream sense, while others were using them more narrowly. For record, I don’t think the narrower version is objectively “incorrect” or anything like that, and I can understand why some people would like to use it. But it is different from how the terms are usually used, and how a lot of gay/bi people and others would like to see them used. And reading “sexual orientation” in the narrower sense when it was intended to be used in the broader sense can result in a very loaded misunderstanding. The same is true for words like “bisexual” and “homosexual.” There was a lot of concern that calling oneself “bisexual” would be interpreted as exclusively sexual-related information.

The use of “homosexual” itself was also criticized. This was (with reason) identified as a stigmatizing term that a lot of gay people didn’t want to be called. But within the “split attraction model,” this term, in its narrower re-sexualized sense, seemed to be the “correct” term for gay people.

There was also concern about who was adopting “homosexual.” Critics who were coming from anti-monosexism circles tended to value solidarity between lesbians and bisexual women and didn’t see either group as privileged over the other. But they also accepted that there was a fairly clean boundary between these groups, and that keeping this boundary unambiguous was important. The “mixed” sexual-romantic identities such as “homosexual biromantic” blurred the distinction between gay and bi, and were thus unintelligible until they were translated as “just a gay person” or “just a bi person.” This translation could go either way. When translated as “just a bi person,” “homosexual biromantic” was perceived as bi people appropriating a gay identity, and a disrespectful one at that. 

A clear division between “oppressed” gay/bi people and “privileged” straight people was also a key point in critics’ social-political worldview, and this mixed identities also blurred this divide, resulting in potential “just a (homophobic) straight person” readings. A “heteromantic bisexual” could be a straight person who just used gay/bi people for sex, and was further obscuring their privilege and homophobic by presenting themselves as non-straight.

Unprocessed internalized homophobia and biphobia were seen as explanations for the adoption of these identities (for either “just gay” or “just bi” translations). The use and promotion of these terms (among advice blogs or through LGBTQ glossaries, for example) was also seen as limiting the ability for young gay/bi people to work through internalized homophobia and biphobia. Having doubts about whether one could have a sexual or emotional relationship with someone of the same gender were seen as common uncertainties among young and newly-out gay/bi people, resulting from the suppression of same-gender possibilities by a heterosexist society. There was a perception that questioning people were being actively encouraged to accept these uncertainties at face value as natural, enduring aspects of their orientation. Even simple exposure to these identities could set people back in their self coming out process, and some people reported how adopting these identities had been a roadblock on their own journeys.

In conjunction with all this, there was a perception that these models of orientation were gaining ground and displacing the models they favored. It seemed easy for current and past broader uses of “sexual orientation” to be overwritten with the narrower version, and thus have the speaker’s meaning completely distorted. I think part of this sense of threat was due to the paired sexual-romantic identities--and other specialized identities that were being developed--following a very empirical-sounding format. It seemed easy to read these terms as a cutting-edge classification of newly observed patterns of human “attraction” and “orientation.” Models that didn’t include them could easily be read as lagging behind and incomplete, their omissions attributed to ignorance rather than an alternate vision of what was meaningful and important to name. This all seemed to lean hard on on a “scientific,” essentialist model of sexuality. And actually, critics themselves sometimes drew on a similar model of sexuality to justify the divisions they saw as important (e.g. between gay and bi). Unfortunately, although critics saw these paired and specialized identities as a clear folly of “going too far,” I think they found it difficult to explain why these terms that sounded even more “sciencey” and comprehensive (= authoritative), were actually wrong.

Anyway, I guess that’s about all I have to say on it for now. Feel free to let me know if you think this story is accurate or inaccurate.

[deciduess]

I think this is called a Peak Trans™ moment?

❌ LeSbOpHoBeS dO nOT iNtErAcT ❌

If you have a problem with this post, please see my bio before privately messaging me or reblogging. Thanks.

🌸

🌸

🌸

I need to vent about something.

A couple of weeks ago, a leftist Instagram account I followed posted these photos:

As a lesbian, I disagree with this post. The account in question encourages discourse, so I decided to comment on it. I’ll be referring to the account as “OP”.

I typed my original comment into my Notes app before sending it, which is the only reason I can share it with you (OP blocked me). It read as follows:

As a lesbian, I don’t think I’d date a trans person because I want a woman who can understand the experience of being socialized as female. I have a lot of trauma with regards to how I was born and socialized. Only other AFAB women will be able to relate to that— even if they haven’t been assaulted (or otherwise experienced what I have). Plus, as a cis person, there’s no way for me to understand the trans experience, so I think there’d be a huge rift between a trans girlfriend and I. I don’t think I’d be able to soothe her or relate to her deeply if she told me about trauma she has as a result of being trans in this society. Of course, trans people don’t usually say that they’ll ONLY date other trans people, but I think they have every right to have that preference.

Unfortunately, I cannot screenshot the rest of the thread, as I’m blocked. The thread isn’t visible to unblocked accounts either.

I will do my best to summarize the rest of the conversation.

Now, both of the people who responded to me were incredibly rude. They insulted me quite a few times, but I can’t remember exactly how they phrased everything, so I’ll just be summarizing their arguments-- minus the attitude. It’s important to note their abusive language, however, because it’s part of the reason this conversation affected me so negatively.

OP: You sound like a TERF. Also, I’ve never heard of a trans person who will only date other trans people. Sounds like a straw man just to excuse your transphobia. And how can you say that trans women aren’t socialized as women?

Me: No, trans women aren’t socialized as female. That’s what makes them trans as opposed to cis, right? They were assigned and socialized as male.

People with vaginas have to deal with much higher rates of sexual harassment and assault even in childhood. And we have to see ourselves assaulted again and again and again when we read the news, watch TV, or read books/comics. I’ve been called weak, unintelligent, and overall inferior all my life due to how I was born. Trans men can relate to this, but trans women cannot. All of this starts early— even before we’re born (I mean, look at gender reveal parties: “guns or glitter”).

OP: So what you’re saying is: trans women are men. Trans people are assaulted too. You’re making a blanket statement about all trans women [when you say they can’t understand female oppression/socialization]. What if a trans woman transitioned at a very young age?

*I decided to ignore OP’s question because... it’s fucking stupid lmfao. You can’t transition in the womb, and you certainly couldn’t consent to that as a baby.

Me: What?? I didn’t say that. You’re putting words into my mouth. Trans women are women, but they have different experiences than cis women.

I know that trans people are assaulted at higher rates than cis people, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that people with vaginas make up the vast majority of victims.

OP: That’s exactly what you’re saying. So, trans women have male privilege, huh? Just admit you’re transphobic and go. Now, answer the FUCKING question.

*I know I said I wasn’t going to convey the tone of these messages, but… wow. Males have told me to “answer the FUCKING question” several times in my life, so that got to me. Males literally can’t act like human beings. The fact that OP is just like any other male no matter how “they” identify is so evident here.

**Now, a trans “woman” starts attacking me. “She” replied to me three times, I think. But I don’t remember how the replies fit into the conversation, and “she” kept repeating “herself”. So, I’m just going to summarize all of that in this one comment.

Trans “Woman”: I’ve been female-socialized and harassed ever since I transitioned at age 16. Also, I’ve been called weak and unintelligent all my life, but thanks for assuming otherwise.

*At this point, I’m getting irritated by these two constantly misconstruing what I’m saying and denying my experiences. So, unfortunately, I use a passive-aggressive emoji. I also use two question marks instead of one. I’m not proud of that, but keep in mind, these two had been complete asshats to me this entire time.

I was so tired at this point. I was sharing my trauma (which isn’t easy for me to talk about,,,,), and I was being so nice. I was trying so hard to center them even though I was talking about my trauma. I didn’t understand why they weren’t reciprocating my energy.

Me: @trans”woman” I’ve been called ‘weak’ and ‘unintelligent’ because I have a vagina. It’s a little different. 🙃

@OP Wait, do you guys think that sex-based oppression doesn’t exist? Like, do you think trans men have the same privilege as cis men??

*OP doesn’t respond for a while. The trans “woman” never responds, either. Finally, OP replies…

OP: You know what? I think I’m just going to block you.

Anddd, that’s why I can’t include screenshots of the interaction on this post. I was kind of relieved that I didn’t have to deal with two MALES shitting on me anymore, though. 🙃🙃🙃

🌸

🌸

🌸

I grew up in a conservative household, but I’ve been a leftist ever since I was a late-teen. Since getting closer to adulthood, I’ve leaned far left on most issues before even reading other leftists’ opinions on the matters. Over the years, though, I’ve been a cetrist on a few topics.

Usually, this is because I don’t have all the information I need. So, when I notice that I disagree with the majority of leftists on something, I read more about it, and I read their opinions. I almost always end up agreeing with the leftist majority opinion on any given topic.

There are only two major issues I haven’t agreed with most leftists on yet: gun rights and trans rights. Leftists support the Second Amendment... I see both sides. I’m beginning to lean pro-Second Amendment, but that has happened before, so it could happen again. I’m not going to elaborate on this because this post isn’t about that.

When it comes to trans rights, I have NEVER understood the popular leftist opinion. I have been trying for years to understand trans people better. But in the end, my opinion has just been, “Well, I don’t have to understand your identity in order to support it and use your pronouns. Your identity isn’t hurting anybody, and no one should hurt you over your identity.” I still agree with that sentiment. I will still use trans people’s pronouns. I still want them to be safe.

But I’m done accommodating them at my expense. And if you’re a shithead to me, I don’t see a problem with putting your pronouns in quotes and referring to you as “males” instead of “AMABs” in a tumblr post that you’ll never see lmfao. It’s been so liberating to disrespect you (on a post you’ll never see) half as much as you disrespected me (to my face).

TRA’s have excluded AFAB women and trivialized their problems so much. Every single post about AFAB women is derailed (”whuttabout trans women???” “don’t you mean people with vaginas?????”). TRA’s suggest that there are no female-only experiences and sex-based oppression does not exist.

I’ve had many concerns with the Trans Rights Movement for years. But I’ve tried to understand. I wanted to actively support trans people. I didn’t want to merely use their preferred pronouns and tolerate them. I’ve followed TRA’s and read what they have to say...

But the Trans Rights Movement just,,, doesn’t,,,, make,,,,,, sense. This conversation sent me over the edge. I don’t care about understanding trans people anymore. If I can’t understand them in half a decade, I don’t think I ever will. Clearly, to these people, including trans “women” means excluding cis women. You’re trans-exclusionary if you talk about cis women’s experiences or issues. You’re trans-exclusionary if you say that trans “women” and cis women are different (unless it’s to say that trans “women” are superior/prettier or more oppressed).

🌸

Now that I don’t care about trans feelings anymore, I’m going to address the conversation from two weeks ago without sugar-coating anything.

Trans “women” will never have the same experiences as cis women.

I will not date a trans “woman” because I NEED someone who can understand the very specific trauma and physical pain of a female assault victim. I NEED my partner to be able to relate to being constantly berated and belittled in all forms of media— even when I try to relax or distract myself, I am constantly reminded that males hate me and think I’m a worthless incubator/dishwasher.

Two weeks ago, I was not concerned enough about the physical differences between trans “women” and cis women. But now, I think it’s a good time to discuss that, too.

It’s perfectly okay to not want to date a trans person because of their genitals.

Even after a trans “woman” has SRS, “her vagina” is NOT a female vagina. It is not self-cleaning. It has no muscles. It smells PUTRID. Neovaginas are repulsive, and they do NOT look like actual vaginas. A neovagina is the physical manifestation of a male’s soul: it’s a disgusting, smelly, functionless hole that is trying to emulate the natural divinity of a woman.

🌸

Now, I’d like to specifically address those two males:

Thank you guys for demonstrating my point that males can NEVER understand the female experience. :)

Thanks for proving that I’ll never be able to open up to males about my SA trauma. Males will always say that they have it worse and/or pretend that what happened to you has NOTHING to do with the fact that you have a vagina. If you’re vulnerable with them, they will stomp all over you. Males only care about themselves, even if they “identify” as women. :)

I would never be able to be in a relationship with someone that constantly belittles my feelings like this.

Also, to the trans “woman” who alleges “she’s” been ~“socialized as a woman”~ since the age of sixteen: no the fuck you haven’t. If you’d been socialized as female, you would be exceedingly nice to me, even if I spoke to YOU in the same way YOU spoke to ME. You would be super apologetic for stating your feelings and standing up for yourself. No matter how illogical you found my arguments, you’d still TRY to understand me because that’s the compassionate thing to do. If you were socialized as female, you’d put OTHERS’ feelings above your own.

But you haven’t been socialized as female. You’re just like every other MALE. You SPEAK OVER a female victim of sexual assault and pretend that YOU’RE more of an expert on HER OWN experiences than SHE is.

You tell women they’re not allowed to have boundaries or preferences. You have absolutely no compassion or humanity. You’re a MALE, AND you’re MALE-SOCIALIZED, and it fucking shows. You’re a disgusting, ignorant, unsympathetic brat that always needs to be coddled— just like every other male.

Also, yes, OP, all males have male privilege. Including trans “women.”

🌸

Two weeks ago, I had deluded myself into saying, “trans women are women.”

But the truth is, trans “women” are not women.

I’m attracted to women. I will never be attracted to a trans “woman.” I’m not sorry. It’s okay if other lesbians are attracted to trans “women,” but my lesbian identity does not include trans “women”. I don’t care if that’s politically incorrect. That’s MY sexuality.

I cannot change my sexuality, and I don’t want to. I love cis women. No male will ever be as strong, intelligent, poignant, or divine as a cis woman. A woman is born with all of these traits.

🌸

I’m certainly transphobic now-- that is quite evident. And I was also transphobic two weeks ago, even though I was trying to unlearn my transphobia. But nothing that I said to this person was transphobic. It’s literally fine to not want to date a trans person. A lesbian is not oppressing you by not wanting to date you lmfao. I openly admit that I am transphobic, but this is not the reason. I will not try to understand why my sexuality is “wrong.”

I’ve stayed out of TERF circles for years, even though TERF posts can be so informative, relatable, and comforting. Thanks to this experience, I’m gonna go ahead and follow whoever tf I want. I'm grateful that this interaction has caused me to start prioritizing my feelings and my rights.

Honestly, trans “women” deserve to be excluded. Males deserve to be excluded. Idgaf about how that makes you feel anymore. You don’t give a shit about how I feel. And you don’t feel guilty when you exclude real women.

[nobodies-png]

Biphobia warning: Can we get Larxene, Aqua, Naminé, Kairi, or Xion dealing with a "well-meaning" person telling her she should break up with her bisexual S/O because "obviously" they'll just cheat on her with a guy? And then some fluff when she comforts the reader? (My GF is bi, I'm lesbian. I've gotten this line a few times. The nerve of some people!)

yIKES - fuck those people, nonnie ! i’m sure you and your gf are lovely, ignore those d u m b comments - like mAN, SHIT LIKE THIS MAKES ME SO MAD, ITS 2019 GUYS, OPEN YOUR EYES

Larxene : 

Long story short : Larxene doesn’t deal well with people patronizing her or judging and shit talking her choices in partners. Love is a really touchy subject for her, so you can tell she’s about to get violent by the sudden rise in electricity in the air. And because she’s already summoned her weapons as a w a r n i n g, idly fiddling with them through gritted teeth.

If the person keeps up with their nonsense, Larxene won’t hesitate to pick them by the collar of their shirt, pulling them to her eye level before chewing them out with her harsh words. Who are they to insult you so freely ? What kind of shitty accusations are those ? “Well-meaning” her ass ! Larxene can tell this person is full of bullshit from miles away.

If they’re someone you don’t particulary care about or know, Larxene w i l l shock them - so you’ll have to drag her away somewhere more private before things get out of control. But even if she tells you that she’s okay, you know she’s not. Before you can even get a word out, she’s already talking, her back turned to you - trying to brush off this entire ordeal. 

“The world is full of assholes, isn’t it ?” It’s extremely hard for Larxene to be so casually affectionate or show her more vulnerable side - yes, even to you - but she’ll give you a hug after this, burying her face in the crook of your neck so you don’t see her pitiful expression. “They don’t know shit about you, I do. And I know you’d never hurt me or anyone else like that.” Larxene is fully aware you’re bisexual, so what about it ? She’s the one y o u chose to love and she’s happy with that.

Aqua :

It would be fine if the insult was directed at her - she’s mature enough to know not to reply and to be the bigger person. But this ? This disrespect is directed at you and she will not tolerate it. If you let her, Aqua would give the person a s t e r n lecture, so classy and savage they’ll be left speechless and embarrassed for saying such stupid things about you. 

But if you don’t want any confrontation, Aqua will merely give them a fake smile, say something like “Understandable. It must be hard to be so closed minded. Get well soon and have a nice day !” and lead you away from this person. To wash away the bitter taste of this encounter, Aqua would treat you to lunch - pick anything you want, it’s on her ! 

She shows no signs of being affected by any of this, but she doesn’t let go of your hand. There’s an unspoken vow between the two to pretend nothing happened, but you decide to confront Aqua about it anyway - she taught you to be open about your feelings and share them with her anytime you needed, so you want her to do the same. 

“It’s embarrassing, I should know better than to get mad. But I have to admit, I can’t stop thinking about it. You don’t deserve to hear such cruel words.” Aqua would take your hands into hers and give you the most sincere look, explaining that no matter what the world says, she’s proud and happy to be with someone wonderful like you ! She’s fought for the safety of this entire world, so she doesn’t comprehend why there’s people so hellbent on putting boundaries on how the rest should love or live.

Namine :

Namine despises confrontation, so she’ll ignore whoever is saying that to her as best as she can - either by changing topics or just pretending they don’t exist. She doesn’t want them to get into details, but she doesn’t have the courage to properly tell them to shut up and mind their own business either. If you’re with her, Namine will give you an apologetic look - she’s really sorry that she couldn’t do more for you.

In the end, the person would leave thinking they’re in the right - but at least there were no arguments or fights. The moment you two are alone, Namine would apologize over and over, fussing over all the things she could’ve done instead to defend you - it’s not okay to fight, but it’s not okay to let others insult you like that either ! Maybe she should go back and give that person an actual piece of her mind ?

You’re gonna have to stop Namine from actually doing that, convince her that you’re fine - but h o o o boy. Her face is red from all the frustration building up in her chest. Namine wants to worry about what you two are going to have for breakfast tomorrow, about how to decorate a house if you two ever live together, about the name of the future pet you might adopt - not about what strangers and outsiders think of your relationship.

She thinks it’s not fair, for you and for the rest of bisexual people in the world. How could someone say something so mean ? They don’t even know you ! Namine would pull you in for a hug, listing all the things she loves about you to remind you that you’re valid and appreciated.

Kairi :

Whoever told her that kind of bullshit is in for a wild ride. If the person who told her that seems decent enough, Kairi will patiently explain that those rumours are just a lie and that cheating isn’t inherent to any romantic or sexual orientation. That’s like saying all pitbulls are awful raging beasts. Or that all left handed people are evil. 

However, if they seem like the type of asshole with a close mind who just refuses to get properly informed, Kairi w o n ‘ t hesitate. Even a princess has her limits and those limits have been c r o s s e d the moment they talked shit about you. You kinda have to remind her to use her words instead of her fists when you see her roll her sleeves. 

Kairi grew up in a fairly accepting and safe enviroment, so she has a somewhat naive and hopeful view on the world. “We have better things to worry about than who loves who.” She wants to assume everyone is a good person, so everytime she encounters these types of people, her blood just b o i l s. Of course, that laced with her strong sense of justice can lead to her getting hurt - so you’re gonna have to drag her away before things escalate.

For the rest of the day, Kairi will latch onto you like a koala, being extra sweet with you. The last thing she wants is for you to doubt your identity because of some dumb comment. She loves you just the way that you are and no one can change her mind ! If the two of you stay strong, one day you’ll show the entire world that your love is worth fighting for.

Xion :

Xion is s o confused. Like, legitimately confused - asking the person who told her to break up with you a thousand questions. Where did they get this information ? What does it mean ? Don’t same gender and straight couples hace the same risk of being cheated on or cheating ? Doesn’t that depend on the person ? 

In the end, whoever gave her that unnecessary advice will just. Leave, because they have no actual information to back up that accusation. You’ll have to sit her down and explain what that nonsense meant - the moment she understands, you’ll see her face go red in anger. Like Namine, she’d want to find the person just to set things right, but instead, Xion would focus on never letting anyone else talk about you like that.

She immediately takes you to have some ice cream in some secluded calm spot so you two can just rant till your hearts content, joking about the situation. “I can’t tell Axel or Roxas about this. They’ll probably kill that person if we see them again!” The two of you would move on and continue with your lives !

But of course, Xion tends to overthink. So at the end of the day, before you go back home, she’ll awkwardly tell you that you’re the strongest person she knows, dealing with shit like that on a daily basis. You helped her find out her own identity and individuality as a person, so no matter what, she’ll stay by your side !

[scientia-rex]

Here’s the thing.

There’s a lot of discourse(TM) that says this:

You can call yourself anything you want.

Don’t call other people things they don’t want.

And that’s reasonable! Right? It makes sense. Be respectful of the wishes of others. That’s right up there with the Golden Rule of social justice. Do unto others as they would have you do unto them, not as you’d have them do unto you, because the things you’d like may well be different.

But here’s the issue I run into with it:

if you don’t want me to say “the queer community,” what do you want me to say?

Is it LGBTQIA+ community? It’s a mouthful, but it’s what I used in my academic writing.

Is it sexual minority community? Because that always sounds kind of weird, and nobody outside of academia that I’ve met uses it.

Is it QUILTBAG? It’s cutesy but I’ve only seen it used in the wild, like, twice.

Is it LGBT community? Why do you prefer that to LGBTQIA+? Is it just how long it takes to say? What about the people it omits? If you’re that concerned about the people in the intersex community who aren’t a fan of being grouped in, what about LGBTQA+? Is that still too long? I’ve never seen it used. Why exclude the Q and the A and the + if you wanted the term to be inclusive? Do you believe that asexuality is a) real b) non-cis-het? Do you believe that nonbinary people are legit? How much do you really believe that trans people and bi people are valid?

Is it gay community? Because I am not gay and I’m really, really tired of being told I’m not gay enough or I’m too gay or I’m on the fence and I need to make up my mind or I’m a bihet or I need to shut up about my sexual orientation because I’m just confusing the issue and I’m not really experiencing homophobia anyway or I can’t be experiencing biphobia because that’s not real and I’m just experiencing watered-down homophobia or I married a man so I’m really just straight or I married a man so I’m just in denial that I’m gay and so on ad nauseam, literal ad nauseam, because it’s nauseatingly enraging to be specifically told that I don’t exist, my sexual orientation doesn’t exist. And dear Lord in heaven don’t tell me that I haven’t been told all of those, because I have, and calling me a liar is one quick way to get blocked. I’ve been told I can’t call myself gay, and I’ve been told I have to call myself gay, “part of the gay community”--well, when you’ve been made a roundly unwelcome in the gay community as I have, you get touchy about it. You don’t want to use a word that isn’t right.

And the people who don’t like “queer community” so very, very often seem to prefer “gay community.”

How do we talk about all of us? Not just “how do we talk about all of us, theoretically, in order to not offend any members of the community, whatever we want to call the community”, but “how do we talk about all of us now, and who doesn’t want to talk about all of us”?

Because it’s pretty fucking clear to me that there are plenty of people who don’t think I belong in The Community, whatever we call it; who resent calling it either the LGBTQIA+ community or the queer community; who would prefer to wallpaper over me. There are certainly people who have real issues with the word queer, who’ve had it shouted at them on streets (like I have), who didn’t decide to reclaim it (like I did). But the people getting all up in my shit about it on social media... a lot of them like to talk about the gay community. As if I’m not relevant. As if I didn’t struggle, fight, work, found my school’s first Gay-Straight Alliance (there was no room for acknowledging bisexuals even in the club I helped found) back in 2003, get spit on, rocks thrown at me, cursed out, chased, threatened, as if that was all somehow homophobia lite, as if the people doing this didn’t know I was bisexual, didn’t also come up to me and ask for threesomes, didn’t make cracks about watching me with women, didn’t ask what percent gay I was.

I’m not saying I have an answer, here. I’m not saying “let’s all call it the queer community!”

I’m saying there’s a correlation between people who don’t like “the queer community” and people who don’t like me. R may not equal 1, but it’s... pretty damn high. I’d say it’s a correlation coefficient of, like, .85.

If you come up with a label for the community that includes all of us, and that you can get everyone in the community to agree isn’t disrespectful, sign me the fuck up. I’m all for it. But I don’t think you can, because I think the fundamental problem, at the root of this, is that the community is fragmented and splintered. The more acceptable people, the ones who are “just like you!” except gay or lesbian, have a social incentive to push the rest of us away. Throw us under the bus, so the straights think you’re OK by them. Or, hell, refuse to acknowledge us so you don’t have to poke at the awkward, weird bits of your own identity--consider whether genitals mean gender, what it means if someone has no gender or all genders, what attraction and love can be or boil down to or where they end and why.

We’re divided. If we stay this way, no wonder we don’t have the political pull to force change.

I want The Community to be for everyone. I want us all to pull together. And the people who are trying to push the unacceptable ones of us out are harming us all.

[a-polite-melody]

Okay, so I’ve been thinking about this more, and really it’s incredible that anyone could even for a second believe that the “discourse” is supposed to be “only about the cishets” because there’s damage being done to so many groups of LGBT+ people who aren’t exclusionists’ claimed target.

The supposed target of the “discourse”:

Cis het-attracted aspecs (ie. cis heteroromantic asexuals and cis aromantic heterosexuals), or as exclusionists put it, “the cishets”.

Other groups harmed in some way or capacity because of the “discourse”:

(Feel free to add other groups or add points to what I have here if I’ve forgotten something or not thought of something!)

Cis Aromantic Asexual People

Someone who is both aromantic and asexual is in no way het-attracted, so they are not cishet. To make the claim that they are also cishet, you would need to assume that het-attraction is the default, and therefore someone who feels no attraction is just a variation on the het default. This perpetuates heteronormativity.

Also, a lot of the stuff from the next section applies to cis aromantic asexual people.

Aromantic and Asexual People Who are Not Cis, Not Het-Attracted, or Both (ie. Otherwise LGBT+ Aspecs)

There are a number of ways these groups are harmed.

1. The aspec part of their identity is treated as being not important. A fantastic example of this is the exclusionist statement that aspec orientations are modifiers onto whatever other orientation a person has. Aspec people are told by things like this that they shouldn’t be prioritizing their aspec orientation. That it’s something about them that isn’t important to the overall scheme of things. The only part that’s important is their other orientation. And if someone is trans or nb and aroace, they are told their orientation isn’t important at all, the only important thing is their gender.

2. Aspec resources, programs, initiatives, etc. would be taken out of LGBT+ spaces. Most LGBT+ spaces have, for years, had resources and spaces dedicated to asexuality (and to a lesser degree aromanticism). By trying to exclude cis het-attracted asexual and aromantic people, you’re saying that the asexual and aromantic parts are not part of the LGBT+ community and shouldn’t have these resources, spaces, etc. You are taking away what aspec people have already in place within the LGBT+ community - things that have been in place for years with no controversy at all - and saying they weren’t there in the first place and if they were they were put there by force.

3. The aspec part of their identity is treated as being dirty, shameful, or an adult topic. So, of course there’s the ever brought up “being aspec is TMI and should only be talked about with a partner”. Since that one is brought up so often, I’m going to talk about some other things. Asexuality: People have made claims that acespec people are simply people who “just don’t want to fuck”. There are claims that an acespec person who feels sexual drive or libido isn’t really acespec. Or that someone who is hypersexual due to trauma can’t be acespec. This is taken even further to claim that asexual and acespec people can’t consent to sex. Aromanticism: People have made claims that arospec people are simply people who “fuck and don’t call the next day”. Arospec people are portrayed as sexual opportunists and even as sexual predators because they don’t feel romantic attraction though some feel sexual attraction.

4. Having their gender or orientation invalidated and/or erased.

Many people who are not cis, not het, or aren’t either of these things have been called cishet by exclusonists. This is really a point for every single section on this post, but to avoid some redundancy I’m only going to put it here. 

People Who Identify Their Orientation and/or Gender as Queer

The point that queer is still used a slur and thus shouldn’t be pushed onto people against their will is a good point, however it’s been extended beyond that to extremes that are harmful.

1. Continually telling people not to push queer onto people when they make a post about their own community or own identity.

We get it. We aren’t doing that in these posts. Let us talk about being queer.

2. Claiming that people shouldn’t be calling themselves queer in the first place.

Queer was reclaimed by many people decades ago. Those of us who are comfortable reclaiming the word are keeping it for ourselves and taking pride in the fact that the community historically worked hard to largely reclaim queer.

This also ignores that in much of the rest of the world outside North America, queer is often the most common way for LGBT+ people to refer to themselves and their community.

Multispec People

Again, this is going to require a numbered list.

1. The assertion that the community is for SGA and trans people.

This claim invalidates multispec people who aren’t SGA. Even if these people would be included because of their gender, these people shouldn’t have their orientation invalidated in order to create a talking point for the “discourse”.

2. The assertion that the community is only for fighting homophobia and transphobia.

This claim invalidates biphobia and other multispec antagonism as being their own distinct problems. They are not a subset of homophobia. There are specific issues that multispec people face for being multispec. People who may be accepting of gay and lesbian people, or who may be gay or lesbian themselves often perpetuate multispec antagonism. My family is a shining example of this. I constantly am bombarded with, “but you’re actually straight!” AND, “but you’re actually gay!” depending on who I’m with or currently attracted to. My family is extremely accepting of gay and lesbian people, but tell me that bi people aren’t real and don’t exist. That’s not at all a subset of homophobia.

3. The claim that the acronym has only ever been LGBT, and that’s it.

While many exclusionists have moved on from this acronym to LGBTPN, there are still some people who stand behind “just LGBT”, which is exclusionary of pan and ply people. To shove these orientations under the B would be incorrect, as they are not subsets of bi. They are their own orientations. If the acronym was LGMT, where M stood for multispec, then you could lump pan and ply with bi because multispec is inclusive of all of these. Also, even in LGBTPN, people who identify as omni are still excluded.

4. The new “discourse” claim that bisexual people were never the targets of an exclusionary movement.

I have a whole post on this.

5. The use of talking points from bi discourse.

Topics of passing privilege are brought up in this “discourse”, which was a talking point used against bi people with an “opposite” gender partner back in the bi discourse. Seeing this rhetoric brought back up again is not only hurting us just from having to see it again, but it gives legitimacy to those original arguments biphobes used against us, which puts us at risk of being targeted by these people again and having new people rally behind them.

Transgender People

Here’s another list. This is the start point of where I know I’m going to leave out things because I have no experience being trans, or any of the identities further down on the list.

1. The new “discourse” claim that transgender people were never the targets of an exclusionary movement.

I have a whole post on this - same as the one under 4 on the multispec list.

2. The use of TERF rhetoric.

Similarly to how having talking points from bi discourse come up harms bi and other multispec people, having TERF rhetoric come up can be traumatic to trans people who have had it used against them, and adds legitimacy to the arguments, meaning that new TERFs, TERF supporters, and TERF and sympathizers are being made.

3. Having “cishet” become a dogwhistle which is no longer useful.

I try hard not to use cishet as a term too much beyond when I make a post directly about another post I saw and want to use similar wording, or when I quote from exclusionist rhetoric. The reason I go to these lengths is because trans and nonbinary people have been talking about how cis exclusionists using cishet to refer to “cishet aspecs” sounds like (and sometimes is) a way for them to distance themselves from their cis privilege. It also is thrown around so often that people tend to roll their eyes or pay no attention to the term cishet any longer because of how frequently and incorrectly it’s used.

I try not to do the same because trans people should be able to have their own language that is helpful for them, and I don’t want to devalue it. If I slip up, please let me know.

This point is also relevant to the next section.

Nonbinary People

Another list, and another thing I am not, so I absolutely encourage corrections and additions here too.

1. The assertion that the community is for SGA and trans people.

This claim invalidates nonbinary people who don’t consider themselves trans.

2. The assertion that the community is only for fighting homophobia and transphobia.

This claim invalidates exorsexism as it’s own thing. Exorsexism isn’t just a subset of transphobia. There are binary trans people who are truscum/transmedicalists who perpetuate exorsexism.

3. The claim that the acronym has only ever been LGBT, and that’s it.

While many exclusionists have moved on from this acronym to LGBTPN, there are still some people who stand behind “just LGBT”, which is exclusionary of any nonbinary people who don’t consider themeslves to be trans. Forcing them to be lumped under the T is disrespectful to their orientation.

Intersex People

There are exclusionists who have been claiming that, since there are cis, het-attracted intersex people, that the LGBT+ shouldn’t include intersex people, similarly to how they try to exclude aspec people. They claim that intersex people have come to a consensus that they don’t want to be included anyway, which is untrue. There are intersex people who don’t want to be included. There are intersex people who do. We shouldn’t be closing off our spaces to intersex people who do want a place here.

Questioning People

I made a post about this earlier today.

Basically, there’s no way to even begin to claim that the “discourse” is only about “the cishets”. It isn’t. You’re affecting and hurting many, many people - beyond just cis, het-attracted aspecs. Pretty much every member of the LGBT+ community that doesn’t subscribe to exclusion is harmed. You aren’t fooling me, and I don’t think you’re fooling too many other people by claiming “it’s only about the cishets” either.

[gryffon]

gonna post that thing i wrote about my abusive ex, this isnt a callout but its just like, all the shit ive been wanting to say and havent felt like i could. gonna namedrop people, gonna not give a fuck, i cant cw for everything but there are rape mentions, physical assault mentions and like. general feelings that happen the wake of emotional abuse.

i dont check often but my ex has deleted the blog she was currently using, (@windowpainter or somethng. she was @hamgubber before, previously @miniaturehorse if anybody remembers from when we were totgether and would post on each others blogs nonstop lol) she has a history of lurking around and worming her way into befriending popular people in online subcommunities i am part of or adjacent to. i have not spoken to her since i realized she was abusive and started to try to pull out of our codependent dynamic. she panicked when i realized actions speak louder than words and her long winded apologies, excuses, and textbookish tripe about DBT and getting better or whatever meant nothing in the face of months of repeated lying, breaking of promises, degradation, disrespect to me as a person, disregard of my physical disabilities, insults, patronization, manipulation, multiple instances of cheating, antagonization, neglect, extortion and overall emotional abuse. when she caught wind that i was going to leave her she wrote me a series of emails totaling over 30,000 words, all varying from "i love you please dont leave me we can work this out. breaking up with me is weak." to "you are not a victim. you are not a victim. here is a categorized list of the ways in which you are abusive while i downplay my own behaviors and patronize you. here's an ultimatum and you are not allowed to respond with more than one sentence." to which i disregarded and wrote up a long, thoughtful reply and chose to never send, ending contact with her for good. this was like, 2013 or 2014.

she never called me out, and i never called her out despite giving very serious consideration to it. i was listening to the advice of my therapist at the time, who told me that she thrives on drama and spends her life constantly creating it, and to give her that kind of attention was exactly what she wanted and would only engage her more in my life and be more degrading to my mental health. the best course of action was to give her nothing, and not give her any more power or influence over me, any footholds or any more of my time, consideration, energy or thought. if anybody reading this has endured emotional abuse from somebody you love, you know it is extremely difficult to totally ignore somebody like this, especially when that person has isolated you from the majority of your support system and friends and you have shaped your entire identity around your relationship with your abuser. but i have followed my therapists advice. i have been working on moving on.

still, over the past few years ive had my mutuals contacted by her friends and told to stop talking to me. ive had people i follow put her and her friends on my dash, which up until recently would send me into a panic that lasted several hours. i have a lot of people in the lesbian/commie/leftist/trans/etc/whatever circles on tumblr who just like randomly have me blocked for no reason (since i dont give a fuck and im going for a spirit of total honesty here, ill name drop @butchcommunist, who she dated for a period of time iirc. a lot of my followeds and mutuals reblog from her. i made a point not to check either of their blogs after finding out but it was upsetting since i would see julia all over my dash. that connection still exists in my mind and its pretty upsetting.). ultimately, and rationally i know that these things do not matter that much. i have a vibrant, healthy and loving circle of friends outside of the internet/tumblr and some randos on the internet having me blocked doesn't really mean anything in the scheme of things. still, when this shit happened it felt terrifying and i was horrified, my emotions magnified by the effects of emotional abuse. despite my VERY intense urge for closure, i try to keep as far away from her as possible.

i gave this woman a year of my life that in my memory is defined by her. i was very madly in love and i spent countless hours at her beck and call, countless hours in calls and in text conversations with her, countless hours supporting her through breakdowns, countless hours talking through her fears and worries, countless hours defending her when she stirred up drama, countless hours defending her horrible behavior to my friends, countless hours rationalizing her abuse to myself and people who approached me with worry, countless hours loving her and wondering why it felt so horrifically painful to be with somebody who told you they wanted to spend the rest of their life with you. almost all the money i was making at the time was spent on her. i helped her move across the continent. i had her at my house for weeks. she fucking took out a loan from my mom. despite how big a role she played in my life, over the past 3 years since our falling out i have only checked her blog less times than i can count on my fingers, usually in moments of distress and in the spirit of self-destruction.

i know for a fact she has convinced her friends to check my blog for her god knows how many times, telling them about her fear of me as a 'dangerous person', that i’m going to call her out, her "fear" that im obsessing over her and am quietly plotting to ruin her life. she's scared for a good reason, but not because i'm an abusive bitter ex out on a smear campaign to slander her innocent name and ruin her life in the name of revenge. she's scared because she knows i have some undeniably serious receipts on her. i have receipts of her sending me a horrifying letter her ex had written her describing a graphic instance of a time my ex had raped her, and of her admitting outright to the rape. i have logs of her checking her rape victim's blog and telling me how exasperated she was her victim was still angry with her even after she apologized, and couldn't understand why her victim was stuck on her and wouldnt move on, going on to blame modern feminism and its tendency to portray abusers and rapists as incorrigible. i have receipts of her admitting to perpetrating emotional and physical abuse in her previous relationships, like an instance where she describes losing control of herself and beating her ex senselessly. i have talked with exes, who confirm stories she had told me where she would cut her arms in her presence, deep enough that her life was at risk, and then refuse to go to the hospital, leaving her girlfriend to either bandage and tend to her wounds or else my ex would bleed out and die. those are just the more horrific ones. i have many receipts that document her emotional abuse towards me as well, which im barely even getting into here. i know plenty of other people have experiences with her and accounts of interacting with her that undeniably portrays her as a serial abuser, rapist, and extortionist and exposes the falsehood of her charming and intelligent persona.

several times i have considered calling her out because she has proven herself beyond a doubt that she is a serial abuser who leaves a trail of burning bridges in her wake. i have no doubts that the evidence i have against her is completely solid, and her claims of my status as an abuser that she perpetuates to her friends are built on pillars of sand. i am not afraid of anything she could bring to the table anymore. i have spoken quite a bit with exes and ex friends (some of which sided with her during our breakup and who eventually ended up cutting off, and we reconnected with years after), and they all suggest the same shit. she is manipulative to her very core and will not stop hurting and using people until she dies.

these are big claims and again, this isn't a callout and the reason im not providing the logs is because im just trying to get out my thoughts in an honest way and im not trying to make a case about anything. this is cathartic. im so fucking tired of feeling like its a secret. i dont even know what blog shes using or whatever and while that scares me, i don't care anymore. people who are still semi-big names in the online communities i drift around in still have me blocked and a lot of times i wish i could message them and tell them "hey, you know she's wrong, and i have absolute proof." but my self worth is high enough that i dont need to go around convincing every single rando who doesn't like me that im a good person, not to mention the risk of indirect contact through those who's lives she is still present in.

for a long time the way i coped was by holding onto the idea that she would apologize to me, and i could finally have closure. she apologized to the ex i mentioned earlier, and because of that i hoped she would grow enough as a person to realize that there is literally no way any rational being could look at our relationship and say that, yeah, i was the one hurting her. apparently thats too much credit to give her, and i realize she only apologized to her ex because she wanted me to think she was changing, growing and a good person at heart who just had a rough past. after enough time, enough conversations with people who she was previously close to, i have accepted that she will never truly dedicate herself to getting better. she will always be using people, always be hurting people, always lying, always hypocritical, always disingenuous and always covering her ass by hiding under the language of victimhood, trauma, recovery, self-improvment, DBT, and therapy to convince her victims that her offences are missteps in her journey to improvement. 

this isn't a callout, this isn't meant to be circulated as a warning, this isn't meant to be any sort of vengeance or crusade. i dont even think shes fuckin on tumblr anymore lol. i don't care anymore. i dont care what people take this as. this is me writing an honest, open, reflective, cathartic processing of the scenario that impacted my teenage years so severely.  this isnt concise or well written and i dont need it to be. i've spent too many years wanting to talk about this, needing to process it more openly, but being riddled with horrific anxiety and fear, worrying about her and her social influence and her ability to impact my life. but its been a long time. ive worked hard at this. ive worked hard to get past this. ive worked hard to learn how to be with people who will treat me with kindness. i needed to write this and i needed to post this without editing every sentence a thousand times. this is largely unedited. i dont care if this makes me look pathetic or obsessed with her ive been letting these feelings stir for years and im just ready to breathe again.

if you want to talk about this post DM me or whatever. if you know her and think its all bullshit and you want logs, sure. i dont have anything to hide anymore. her name is viv and she is the worst person i have ever met and i feel sorry that i gave her so much of my love. thanks.

[lastoneout]

(queer discourse below)

Ya know the more I think about it the more I realise that like...I always hated acronyms like lgbt, lgbtqa+ or quilt-bag or whatever. Like why did it never occur to me that queer has always been there? All of those messy acronyms were always like not enough. Someone was always left out, more than just one group was never represented because there just wasn’t enough letters and god eventually that shit just gets too long to say anyway...

And sure we put it all under ‘gay’ but that never set right with me either since ‘gay’ always seemed to mean attracted to ‘same gender’ and like...no??? There are so many different queer identities and lumping them all under gay is just....its wrong. Especially when people love to pull the ‘you have to be attracted to the same gender to be lgbt+ which is SUCH bullshit.

And from what I gather from talking to and reading up on Queer history...Queer means different, and it’s not just about gay and lesbians and trans people, its about everyone who is different in sexuality, gender and romantic attraction. That means Ace and Aro people, it means Bi and Pan, it means Intersex, it means agender and bi-gender and demi-girls and everything like that. 

These people, our predecessors fought long and hard to take Queer back, just like we, queer millennials, fought to take gay back. We took the word they used against us and rubbed our dirty, queer hands all over it and made it ours. And I don’t want to erase that. 

If you don't like Queer, sure, don't use it to describe yourself. And sure, some words get phased out, like transvestite. But queer has been ours for so long, the last generations made sure of that. And you can’t erase that. It’s disrespectful. And don’t shit on people who use it to describe themselves. It’s a nice, easy way to explain that you aren’t straight, and a lot of people are tired of explaining what biromantic demisexual means to a host of ignorant fucks who are just going to follow up with a bunch of bullshit, rude, personal questions that aren't really any of their business anyway. You can’t blame people for being sick of that shit, I know I am. (I used to describe myself as a pan-romantic demi-sexual but things chance, queer is just..so much easier.) 

And yeah, the more I look into it the more I realise that lgbtqa+ and lgbt and all that shit just boils down to exclusion. Never trust someone who tells ace people, who tells agender or bi people or anyone like that that they aren’t queer enough to be here. Cause that’s bullshit and you know it. 

(Especially since the consensus on older queer people seems to be ‘of course ace people are part of our community’ and not ‘nooo you're not queer enough to be here blahhh’ fuck that noise. I’m part of this community and in my book, of course ace and aro people are welcome here. They sure as shit aren't welcome anywhere else.) 

And honestly...like the more I see ‘lgbt’ used to exclude and belittle people...the more I start to hate it. Like ‘lgbt’ full stop and ‘same gender attraction’ squick me out so hard like fuck. 

[dandymeowth]

Various screencaps of REGs telling people they can’t identify as queer and/or that queer is not an identity or isn’t real, all taken from this post. This is provided as part of evidence that, yes, acephobes/discoursers are absolutely saying we can’t be or use queer. Also, hey, check out how many of them are transmisogynistis, radfems, biphobes, transphobes, etc! and use a lot of anti-progressive/anti-sj language (like “identity politics”). It’s almost as if their rhetoric is related...

I have removed the REG usernames in the following captions to avoid their interacting with this post, and to slightly no-platform them. Anyway, they read:

bigballofwibblywobbly: Well you created an argument about something that wasn’t being talked about. I was talking about individuals who don’t identify as anything but queer.

Not saying we should apply it to the whole group. But you’re a terf so it all makes sense.

[REG/radfem 1]: queer isn’t an orientation??? its a reclaimed slur like god i love being a part of the lesbian gay bisexual transgender reclaimed slur for homosexual community. you’re an ace inclusionist ofc you want to reclaim slurs never used against you and think queer is a separate orientation. the lgbt community will never be the queer community or the ‘everyone that doesn’t completely conform to heterosexuality’ community lol

[REG 2]:  Yeah queer isn’t really a coherent identity in and of itself. I see “sapphic” being used in much the same way now. Like I understand that figuring out who you are is difficult and people may want to use words that are sort of? Vague and noncommittal? But queer quite honestly does not mean anything in the sense that as it’s own identity it says nothing really about who you are attracted to or your gender identity. It’s [post cut off at this point]

[REG 3]: That and its fucking vague as fuck? What does it even mean? So many non-LGBT people claimed that they’re LGBT bc they’re “queer”, when they’re just cishet polyamorous people or cishet kinksters or cishet aces or cishet aros or cis aroaces like…. that slur isn’t for u. And people who are LGBT but identify as q*eer are still LGBT? Why do u need a slur in the acronym if you’re either L G B or T? What’s the point? What does it add?

[REG 3]: Then you’d go under the bi umbrella Identity politics are so ridiculous jfc u don’t experience some new form of oppression and therefore need a community based around it just because you are mga but don’t like the label bisexual for urself.

[REG/radfem 4]:  “Queer” could mean that you are a guy who uses nail polish or that you have a turtle pet.What’s the point of this word?What does it represent?What’s your axis of oppression?What experiences do you share in common?What’s the fucking point of identifying as “queer” other than to pretend that you’re special and oppressed?

feminismandmedia: I love how you say that people who are attracted to multiple genders are pretending to be special and oppressed.

Fuck off you twit.

[REG/radfem 4]: Sexual attraction is about sex not gender.There are only 2 sexes so you’re either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.It’s not that deep, trying to give a special name to your sexuality doesn’t make you opressed and it’s actually disrespectful to actually opressed people.

[REG/radfem 5]: You shouldn’t be identifying as q*eer freely without consequence because it’s a slur.

[REG/radfem 4]: Why are you oppressed?What’s the base of your oppression?How is society systematically aimed against you?If you’re actually oppressed why do you use such an ambigous and nebulous terminology with no concrete meaning to describe your community?Since it makes it harder to acknowledge you as an oppressed group? “Fam. I like all genders. I like dick and vagina too. I’m queer too” You’re bi, congrats, you may be affected by homophobia(oppression) if you date a same sex partner.“Oppression” is a strong and assertive word, you can’t just throw it around.

bigballofwibblywobbly: My god I hate TERFs. Fall off a bridge. Thanks.

Seriously? Do we now have a quota of oppression to fill? You want every dirty detail? You disgust me.

Also I’m not bisexual thanks.

[REG/radfem 4]: “Do we now have a quota of oppression to fill” Yes it is called being oppressed.I said that the person who said they liked dicks and vaginas is bisexual, not you. You hate us cause we’re right and you know it, I would hate us if I were you too. Just bc someone called you she instead of zir in the supermarked once doesn’t mean you’re oppressed Bethy, get your shit together.

bigballofwibblywobbly: I love how they erase my queerness to fit their argument.

[REG/radfem 4]: What am I erasing? Lmao, what’s “queerness”?You still haven’t answered what it means, bc it means nothing, it is a word made for straight kids feel special, a homobhobic slur actually.

bigballofwibblywobbly: My pal. I already said. I like all genders.

[REG/radfem 4]: …so you’re bisexual therefore only oppressed if you date a same sex partner like I said.

bigballofwibblywobbly: Wow. That’s some nice biphobia you have too. Bisexual people don’t become straight if they are in a relationship with the other gender.I’m not bisexual anyways.

(Also on that last one, calling being nonbinary a white thing? lol)

bigballofwibblywobbly: Well guess I don’t belong in the community. Congrats your gatekeeping has cut out people who like multiple genders. Top notch. Really.

[REG 6]: Aren’t there other words for liking multiple genders other than a slur?

[REG 7]: Um OP polysexual falls under the acronym without using a slur and is an umbrella term for multi-gender attraction….

Bonus under cut.

The following cap is a separate post made by a REG that is capped for no-platforming purposes and to prevent their interaction. It was shoved into the ace positivity tags because discoursers seriously just straight up hate ace people and don’t want them to exist. 

The post is about how “real” LGBT+ people hate the word queer and don’t identify with it except as a comeback, implying anyone who identifies with or uses it regularly is actually not LGBT+ and instead one of “the mogais”. It compares people reclaiming queer to white people using the n-slur and neurotypicals using the r-slur.

The post uses the phrase “cishets in denial” and I honestly think that truly encapsulates exactly how discoursers are seeing being LGBT+. 

It fits right along with that “if you are attracted to the opposite sex you’re not lgbt” post. 

It fits with the idea that more people are identifying as LGBT+ because it’s “trendy” and are actually fakes and liars, an idea spread and supported by cishets, truscum, anti-sj, radfems, etc. This comes as no surprise as MOGAI was coined by a nonbinary person, and that has been the driving force behind the hatred for it.

It also fits with how “sga” is pulled from conversion therapy because that’s literally how the people behind and supportive of the concept of conversion therapy look at being LGBT+: that it’s a phase, you’re just jumping on the bandwagon, you’re in denial, this isn’t the “real” you, etc. 

The post reads:

[REG 8]: Lol, seriously? There is no better way to show that MOGAI is made up of mostly cishets in denial than how heatedly they fight to use the word “qu**r”. If they paid fucking attention, they’d know that actual members of LGBT don’t really want to be called that, that most LGBT folks only use it to fight the balance of power that qu**r causes and that they aren’t going to cast away the history of the slur just because it’s supposedly a trendy umbrella term.

It’s the same way white people whine about their “right” to use “n*gga” when black people say no, or NT people claim “freedom of speech” when calling anyone and everyone “r*tard*d” despite decent human beings explaining why that’s fucked up.It’s so damn annoying…

danni-rants: And this is in ace positivity why again

queerautism: You heard it here first folks. Everyone who fought to reclaim Queer as an act of rebellion and empowerment… was actually cishet all along. Same for neurodivergent people who can’t be more specific than ‘queer’ about their identity. And everyone who keeps trying to turn it into a positive term and build a community around it. Also my nonbinary pan ace ass apparently lol

Simply Amazing.

[clubofinfo]

Expert: The Russians have an expression: words are deeds. Indeed, words contain a mesmeric power, and while this power can be used for good, it can also be used to harness dark and pernicious forces. For as Orwell understood all too well, words can be hijacked by a corrupt ruling class and used to indoctrinate, manipulate, and deceive. In order to understand how the liberal class has come to be so beguiled by the forces of reaction, one must take note of the unprecedented liberal hysteria over racism, sexism, and homophobia. Indeed, the more liberals remain transfixed with this unholy trinity, the more indifferent they become to the terrible suffering inflicted by capitalism, as they are drawn further and further to the right, and pulled ever more deeply into a vortex of amorality. This is not to suggest that racism, sexism, and homophobia do not exist, but rather, that these words have been co-opted by a ruling establishment which has succeeded in duping the faux-left into embracing policies that are deeply antithetical to the interests of American workers, patients, and students. In politics either one believes in unions, single-payer, and public education or one doesn’t. Either one opposes imperialism, or one does not. The problem with anchoring a political discourse around who opposes racism, sexism, and homophobia and who (allegedly) doesn’t, is that these words are inherently ambiguous to the point where they can be manipulated to mean almost anything. All too often, the racists, sexists, and homophobes can simply comprise anybody who has the temerity to challenge liberal orthodoxy. In an article in U.S. News and World Report titled “The Problem with Hillary-Hate,” Joanne Cronrath Bamberger bemoans the criticism of her hero, arguing that, “Pundits and journalists alike continually refer to her as corrupt and untrustworthy, even though the things people point to for support either are false or they can’t say why they use those words because, well, it’s just a feeling they have”. “We came, we saw, he died,” Hillary famously blurted out when asked about the brutal murder of Gaddafi. While this may never be mentioned on CNN, Libya was a country that had a high standard of living, and had attained a sound nationalization of its health care and education systems. Gaddafi infuriated the Western elites by attempting to establish a gold-backed dinar, leading NATO to unleash a barrage of merciless savagery and violence on a country that is now in a state of complete and utter lawlessness, yet this fails to elicit even so much as a shrug from the sanctimonious imaginary left. For these acts of barbarity pale in the decaying liberal mind with an accusation of sexism. Bamberger continues: Disagree with her policies all you want. Propose different plans that are better. But continuing hate-based commentary about Clinton implicitly says to us all that it will also be acceptable to throw the next woman presidential candidate – viable or not – under the bus with detestable accusations and made-up charges. To let that kind of hateful disrespect for any woman continue allows it to become our cultural norm. This lamentable mentality is illustrative of how the sexism card can be used to stifle criticism – not only of an extremely corrupt politician – but of foreign policies that are nothing short of genocidal. In an equally inane article in the HuffPost by Maya Dusenbery, titled “Medicine has a Sexism Problem, and it’s Making Women Sicker,” the author (who has rheumatoid arthritis and a female rheumatologist), writes: While I’ve been a feminist writer for years, before I got sick, I hadn’t given much thought to how sex and gender bias has skewed what we know and don’t know about health and disease and how it affects the quality of medical care that patients receive. But after my brush with the autoimmune epidemic – an epidemic that seemed strangely off the radar of both the public and the medical system – I started to explore it. What I’ve discovered is that a lack of knowledge about women’s health, and a lack of trust in their reports of their symptoms – entwined problems that have become remarkably entrenched in the American medical system – conspire to leave many women misdiagnosed, dismissed and sick. Hospital errors are the third leading cause of death in this country, and thousands of Americans continue to file for bankruptcy due to medical bills they cannot pay, while little Cuba has had constitutionally mandated single-payer since 1959, yet these are mere trivialities. The real problem with our health care system is that it is sexist. If sexism is the son, racism is the father, and no one loves talking about racism more than liberals. Regrettably, they know nothing whatsoever about it. Last April, Milo Yiannopoulos was driven out of a New York bar by a pack of vituperative liberals who repeatedly yelled “Nazi scum get out.” That Milo is a flamboyant homosexual, married to a black man, and has a Jewish maternal grandmother surely makes him the strangest Nazi that ever lived. Whether one agrees with what he says or not, is neither here nor there. The point is that it is simply far too common for anyone who disagrees with fundamentalist liberal dogma to be beaten with the truncheons of racism and sexism. That the real Nazis are in Kiev, and that they violently seized power in a coup which was wholeheartedly backed by the Obama administration is, to quote John Pilger, beyond irony. In an article in The Washington Post titled “The Racist Backlash Obama Has Faced During His Presidency,” by Terence Samuel, the author writes, “From the very beginning, Obama’s ascendance produced a huge backlash that was undeniably racist in nature….” This was an administration that destroyed Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, supported death squads in Syria that led to the destruction of over half the country, slaughtered thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, passed the National Defense Authorization Act, set aside a trillion dollars to modernize our nuclear weapons arsenal and brought relations with Moscow to their nadir. Moreover, these genocidal polices were paid for with trillions of dollars, while a vast swath of American society is either uneducated, unemployed, or without decent health insurance. Yet these acts of brazen criminality and barbarity are incidental. So let’s ignore the content of Obama’s character, and just talk about the color of his skin. At a lecture at Trinity College Dublin in June, Hillary said, “Vladimir Putin has positioned himself as the leader of an authoritarian, white-supremacist and xenophobic movement….” What is striking about these remarks is that much of Hillary’s presidential campaign was anchored in Russophobia – undeniably one of the most dangerous forms of racism – and which contributed to an ideology that led to the murder of twenty-seven million Russians during the Second World War. Liberals wield an extraordinary amount of power in the public schools, and regard themselves as valiant crusaders against racism. Yet while they repeatedly and vociferously maintain that the ethnic studies programs and the multicultural curriculum are the antithesis of racism, they are actually the quintessence of it. For these policies have fomented an unprecedented degree of segregation in our schools and in our society. Indeed, virtually any attempt at elevating the level of education for poor students of color – especially in the humanities – will invariably land a public school teacher in the doghouse with a liberal administrator. In this schizophrenic order that would make Orwell blush, the real racists are now holier-than-thou anti-racists. Accusations of homophobia have also become quite useful when it comes to duping insouciant liberals into embracing reactionary policies. In an article in The Guardian titled “Iranian Human Rights Official Describes Homosexuality as an Illness,” the author bemoans the fact that, “An Iranian official whose job is to protect human rights has described homosexuality as an illness, after a UN special rapporteur expressed concerns about the systematic persecution of Iran’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.” What a pity that the editors of a once respectable newspaper are happy to print anti-Iranian propaganda, so as to foment liberal bloodlust for yet another regime change. The author also fails to question why one of Washington’s best friends in the Middle East, the Saudi monarchy, a regime that delights in decapitating people as punishment for “sorcery and witchcraft,” is permitted to impose a theocracy infinitely more reactionary and medieval than the one in Iran, and can do so without even the faintest trace of rebuke from the Western media. And what of the Washington-backed jihadi death squads in Syria and Libya? What is their record on gay rights? Indeed, the same question could be raised regarding the rights of women living under the yoke of these barbarians. But they are “the good terrorists,” and so all is forgiven. In an article in The Guardian by Peter Tatchell, titled “World Cup Fever, Gay Rights Abuses and War Crimes – It’s an Ugly Mix,” the author writes, “I’m here for the World Cup – but unlike thousands of fans, I won’t be cheering on this festival of football. LGBT+ people and many other Russians suffer state-sanctioned persecution and far-right violence. These abuses need to be challenged.” The decision of Washington to unleash Neo-Nazi and other far-right paramilitaries on the Donbass that have murdered thousands of ethnic Russians, Moscow’s military intervention in Syria that saved the country from the fate of Libya, and the fact that Russians enjoy free health care and superior education, are of no interest to Western propagandists. Russians are simply terrible people, and what better way to get liberals to embrace Russophobia (not to mention the annihilation of the planet), than to talk about the country’s lack of gay rights? This is not to say that identity politics and multiculturalism have been a failure. On the contrary, they have been a resounding success. However, contrary to fundamentalist liberal dogma this success lies not unto the heart of the left, but under the iron heel of the right. Increasingly, those who have been indoctrinated to view the world through the warped prism of identity politics are incapable of seeing political reality for what it is, but for what the ruling establishment desires it to be. For they have been enshrouded in a veil of blindness. That liberals have severed all ties with The Civil Rights Movement, unions, intellectual inquiry, and anti-imperialist sentiment is incontrovertible. The ongoing fervor and cultlike zealotry over racism, sexism, and homophobia has ushered in a new era of witch-hunts, and is indicative of a liberal class that is increasingly unmoored and unhinged. The psychosis of contemporary liberalism has defiled and contaminated our very language, and caused the national discourse to be paralyzed by a deranged political philosophy that has fomented a war of all against all, while allowing the elite to use liberals as attack dogs to vilify, intimidate, and silence all who oppose the machinations of capitalist power both at home and abroad http://clubof.info/

[nancyedimick]

Kentucky court rejects government attempt to punish printer for refusing to print ‘Lexington [Gay] Pride Festival’ T-shirt

(Image used with permission.)

Blaine Adamson, the co-owner and manager of a printing business in Kentucky, has religious objections to printing various types of messages, such as those that promote “adult entertainment products and establishments,” messages containing demeaning terms such as “b—-es” and depictions of Jesus that he views as disrespectful (examples included “Jesus dressed as a pirate or selling fried chicken”).

Because of this Adamson refused to print, for the local Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, T-shirts that promoted the fifth annual Lexington Gay Pride Festival. (The GLSO wanted T-shirts to bear the words “Lexington Pride Festival 2012,” the number “5” and a series of rainbow-colored circles around the “5.”) The Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission ruled that this violated the Lexington County law banning sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.

In Friday’s Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Comm’n v. Hands On Originals, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), a three-judge panel ruled, on a 2-1 vote, that Adamson’s actions didn’t violate the ordinance (and thus avoided having to decide whether he had a First Amendment right, under the “compelled speech” doctrine, not to be forced to print messages of which he disapproved).

1. First, the panel split on whether the refusal to print a gay pride message was sexual orientation discrimination against particular individuals. (All three judges agreed that the T-shirt store was, under the ordinance and under Kentucky law, a place of public accommodation.) The majority said no:

For example, a shopkeeper’s refusal to serve a Jewish man, not because the man is Jewish, but because the shopkeeper disapproves of the fact that the man is wearing a yarmulke, would be the legal equivalent of religious discrimination. A shopkeeper’s refusal to serve a homosexual, not because the person is homosexual, but because the shopkeeper disapproves of homosexual intercourse or same-sex marriage, would be the legal equivalent of sexual orientation discrimination.

By contrast, however, it is not the aim of public accommodation laws, nor the First Amendment, to treat speech as this type of activity or conduct. This is so for two reasons. First, speech cannot be considered an activity or conduct that is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people. … Second, the right of free speech does not guarantee to any person the right to use someone else’s property, even property owned by the government and dedicated to other purposes, as a stage to express ideas. …

Nothing of record demonstrates HOO, through Adamson, refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity. … Don Lowe, the only representative of GLSO with whom [Adamson] spoke regarding the t-shirts[,] … testified he never told Adamson anything regarding his sexual orientation or gender identity. The GLSO itself also has no sexual orientation or gender identity: it is a gender-neutral organization that functions as a support network and advocate for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered….

[GLSO’s] membership and its Pride Festival welcome people of all sexual orientations. It functions as a support network and advocate for others (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals). And, the t-shirts the GLSO sought to order from HOO are an example of its support and advocacy of others…. [T]he symbolism of [the proposed t-shirt] design, the festival the design promoted, and the GLSO’s desire to sell these shirts to everyone clearly imparted a message: Some people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered; and people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals.

The act of wearing a yarmulke is conduct engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who practice Judaism. The acts of homosexual intercourse and same-sex marriage are conduct engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who are homosexual. [The court had earlier given these as examples of activities that “may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed.” -EV] But anyone — regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, age, or corporate status — may espouse the belief that people of varying sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals.

Indeed, the posture of the case before us underscores that very point: this case was initiated and promoted by Aaron Baker, a non-transgendered man in a married, heterosexual relationship who nevertheless functioned at all relevant times as the President of the GLSO. For this reason, conveying a message in support of a cause or belief (by, for example, producing or wearing a t-shirt bearing a message supporting equality) cannot be deemed conduct that is so closely correlated with a protected status that it is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that particular protected status. It is a point of view and form of speech that could belong to any person, regardless of classification. …

Nothing in the fairness ordinance prohibits HOO, a private business, from engaging in viewpoint or message censorship. Thus, although the menu of services HOO provides to the public is accordingly limited, and censors certain points of view, it is the same limited menu HOO offers to every customer and is not, therefore, prohibited by the fairness ordinance.

The dissenting judge, Judge Jeff S. Taylor, disagreed:

HOO’s conduct was discriminatory against GLSO and its members based upon sexual orientation or gender identity…. GLSO serves gays and lesbians and promotes an “alternative lifestyle” that is contrary to some religious beliefs. That lifestyle is based upon sexual orientation and gender identity that the United States Supreme Court has recently recognized. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to marry [including in a same-sex marriage] is guaranteed to same sex couples under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. … Regardless of personal or religious beliefs, this is the law that courts are duty bound to follow.

The majority takes the position that the conduct of HOO in censoring the publication of the desired speech sought by GLSO does not violate the Fairness Ordinance. Effectively, that would mean that the ordinance protects gays or lesbians only to the extent they do not publicly display their same gender sexual orientation.

This result would be totally contrary to legislative intent and undermine the legislative policy of LFUCG since the ordinance logically must protect against discriminatory conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation or gender identity. Otherwise, the ordinance would have limited or no force or effect. The facts in this case clearly establish that HOO’s conduct, the refusal to print the t-shirts, was based upon gays and lesbians promoting a gay pride festival in Lexington, which violated the Fairness Ordinance.

Finally, it is important to note that the speech that HOO sought to censor was not obscene or defamatory. There was nothing obnoxious, inflammatory, false, or even pornographic that GLSO wanted to place on their t-shirts which would justify restricting their speech under the First Amendment. … Likewise, there is nothing in the message that illustrates or establishes that HOO either promotes or endorses the Festival. …

While free speech is not without its limitations, nothing in the promotion of the Festival by GLSO came close to being outside the protections of the First Amendment. The Fairness Ordinance in this case is simply an extension of civil rights protections afforded to all citizens under federal, state and local laws. These civil rights protections serve the societal purpose of eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace.

2. Judge James H. Lambert appears to have joined the majority opinion on the question whether HOO’s conduct was discriminatory (since he labeled that opinion “the majority opinion,” which it could be only with his vote). But he also reasoned that the ordinance was preempted by the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Statute, which is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act applied in Hobby Lobby and other recent cases. He concluded that the ordinance, as interpreted by the commission, burdened the HOO owners’ religious practice, and thus the owners were entitled to an exemption unless denying the exemption was the least restrictive means of serving a compelling interests — a showing the government could not make:

There is little doubt LFUCG has a compelling interest in preventing local businesses from discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation. LFUCG must be able to market itself as a place where all people can acquire the goods and services they need.

Accordingly, by the plain text of [the state RFRA], the central issue here is whether the fairness ordinance is the least-restrictive way for LFUCG to prevent local business from discriminating against members of the gay community without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. … [I]nstead of providing an owner of a closely-held business, or the like, with an alternative means of accommodating a patron who wishes to promote a cause contrary to the owner’s faith [footnote: Here, the owners of HOO offered to find a printer who would do the work at the same price quoted initially to accommodate the needs of the customer], the fairness ordinance forces the owner to either join in the requested violation of a sincerely held religious belief, or face a penalty, i.e., support the furtherance of the offending cause or take a class on how to support it. Such coercion violates [the state RFRA]. …

Taylor disagreed:

[As to the religious exemption claim,] the holding in Hobby Lobby was limited solely to the issue of whether a closely held corporation could raise a religious liberty defense to the insurance contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act. And, I do not believe [the Kentucky RFRA] is implicated in this case, as the statute does not prohibit a governmental entity from enforcing laws or ordinances that prohibit discrimination and protect a citizen’s fundamental rights. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that religious beliefs or conduct may be burdened or limited where the compelling government interest is to eradicate discrimination. See Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S. (1983) (holding that the government has an overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education).

3. Here’s my view, which was expressed in this amicus brief that my student Ashley Phillips and I filed on behalf of the Cato Institute: Whether or not the ordinance bars discrimination against messages supporting pro-gay-rights events, a printer has a First Amendment right to refuse to print messages of which he disapproves. As the amicus brief argued,

The government may not require Americans to help distribute speech of which they disapprove. The Supreme Court so held in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), when it upheld drivers’ First Amendment right not to display on their license plates a message with which they disagree. The logic of Wooley applies equally to printers’ right not to print such messages.

The government’s interest in preventing discrimination cannot justify restricting Hands On Originals’ First Amendment rights. Hands On Originals is not discriminating based on the sexual orientation of any customer. Rather, its owners are choosing which messages they print. In this respect, the owners’ actions are similar to the actions of the parade organizers in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), who also chose not to spread a particular message through their parade.

In Hurley, the Supreme Court noted that the state, in trying to force the organizers to include a gay pride group in a parade, was applying its antidiscrimination law “in a peculiar way”: to mandate the inclusion of a message, not equal treatment for individuals. And the Court held that this application of antidiscrimination law violated the First Amendment. The Commission’s attempt to apply such law to Hands On Originals’ choice about which materials to print likewise violates the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that large organizations, such as cable operators or universities, might be required to convey messages on behalf of other organizations with which they disagree. But Hands On Originals is a small owner-operated company, in which the owners are necessarily closely connected to the speech that Hands On Originals produces. In this respect, the owners of Hands On Originals are much closer to the Maynards in Wooley v. Maynard, whose “individual freedom of mind,” secured the right not to help distribute speech of which they disapproved.

Moreover, the dissenting judge’s argument about the free speech protections offered to the Lexington Pride Festival strikes me as entirely beside the point: The T-shirt would certainly have been constitutionally protected against government suppression, just as the motto “Live Free or Die” would be so protected. But people also have a First Amendment right not to display the message (as in Wooley) or to print the message.

Likewise, the dissenting judge’s argument that requiring HOO to print the T-shirt wouldn’t suggest “that HOO … endorses the Festival” is also beside the point. That was precisely the argument the dissenting justices made in Wooley (quoting the New Hampshire Supreme Court): “The defendants’ … [having] to display plates bearing the State motto carries no implication … that they endorse that motto or profess to adopt it as matter of belief.” But the Wooley majority was unswayed by that: The Maynards, the court held, had a First Amendment right to “refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable,” and thus could not be forced to display the motto even in a context where no one would think that they were endorsing the motto. The same is true of people who don’t want to foster an idea by participating in the creation (rather than display) of messages expressing that idea.

You can read the whole brief here, but let me close with these hypotheticals:

Say members of the Westboro Baptist Church come to a printer — a printer who supports gay rights or who is gay himself or who just thinks the Westboro belief system is appalling — and demand that he print a “Westboro Baptist Church Pride” T-shirt.

Or say that an anti-illegal-immigrant group comes to a printer in Seattle and demands that he print a “Build a Wall / Deport Them All” T-shirt. (Seattle bans public accommodation discrimination based not just on race, religion, sexual orientation and the like but also “political ideology,” defined as “any idea or belief … relating to the purpose, conduct, organization, function or basis of government and related institutions and activities, whether or not characteristic of any political party or group.”)

Should the government be able to punish the printer for refusing, on the theory that this constituted impermissible religious or political ideology discrimination in public accommodations?

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/14/kentucky-court-rejects-government-attempt-to-punish-printer-for-refusing-to-print-lexington-gay-pride-festival-t-shirt/

[wolfandpravato]

Kentucky court rejects government attempt to punish printer for refusing to print ‘Lexington [Gay] Pride Festival’ T-shirt

(Image used with permission.)

Blaine Adamson, the co-owner and manager of a printing business in Kentucky, has religious objections to printing various types of messages, such as those that promote “adult entertainment products and establishments,” messages containing demeaning terms such as “b—-es” and depictions of Jesus that he views as disrespectful (examples included “Jesus dressed as a pirate or selling fried chicken”).

Because of this Adamson refused to print, for the local Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, T-shirts that promoted the fifth annual Lexington Gay Pride Festival. (The GLSO wanted T-shirts to bear the words “Lexington Pride Festival 2012,” the number “5” and a series of rainbow-colored circles around the “5.”) The Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission ruled that this violated the Lexington County law banning sexual orientation in places of public accommodation.

In Friday’s Lexington Fayette Urban County Human Rights Comm’n v. Hands On Originals, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App. May 12, 2017), a three-judge panel ruled, on a 2-1 vote, that Adamson’s actions didn’t violate the ordinance (and thus avoided having to decide whether he had a First Amendment right, under the “compelled speech” doctrine, not to be forced to print messages of which he disapproved).

1. First, the panel split on whether the refusal to print a gay pride message was sexual orientation discrimination against particular individuals. (All three judges agreed that the T-shirt store was, under the ordinance and under Kentucky law, a place of public accommodation.) The majority said no:

For example, a shopkeeper’s refusal to serve a Jewish man, not because the man is Jewish, but because the shopkeeper disapproves of the fact that the man is wearing a yarmulke, would be the legal equivalent of religious discrimination. A shopkeeper’s refusal to serve a homosexual, not because the person is homosexual, but because the shopkeeper disapproves of homosexual intercourse or same-sex marriage, would be the legal equivalent of sexual orientation discrimination.

By contrast, however, it is not the aim of public accommodation laws, nor the First Amendment, to treat speech as this type of activity or conduct. This is so for two reasons. First, speech cannot be considered an activity or conduct that is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people. … Second, the right of free speech does not guarantee to any person the right to use someone else’s property, even property owned by the government and dedicated to other purposes, as a stage to express ideas. …

Nothing of record demonstrates HOO, through Adamson, refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity. … Don Lowe, the only representative of GLSO with whom [Adamson] spoke regarding the t-shirts[,] … testified he never told Adamson anything regarding his sexual orientation or gender identity. The GLSO itself also has no sexual orientation or gender identity: it is a gender-neutral organization that functions as a support network and advocate for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered….

[GLSO’s] membership and its Pride Festival welcome people of all sexual orientations. It functions as a support network and advocate for others (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered individuals). And, the t-shirts the GLSO sought to order from HOO are an example of its support and advocacy of others…. [T]he symbolism of [the proposed t-shirt] design, the festival the design promoted, and the GLSO’s desire to sell these shirts to everyone clearly imparted a message: Some people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered; and people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals.

The act of wearing a yarmulke is conduct engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who practice Judaism. The acts of homosexual intercourse and same-sex marriage are conduct engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who are homosexual. [The court had earlier given these as examples of activities that “may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed.” -EV] But anyone — regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, age, or corporate status — may espouse the belief that people of varying sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals.

Indeed, the posture of the case before us underscores that very point: this case was initiated and promoted by Aaron Baker, a non-transgendered man in a married, heterosexual relationship who nevertheless functioned at all relevant times as the President of the GLSO. For this reason, conveying a message in support of a cause or belief (by, for example, producing or wearing a t-shirt bearing a message supporting equality) cannot be deemed conduct that is so closely correlated with a protected status that it is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that particular protected status. It is a point of view and form of speech that could belong to any person, regardless of classification. …

Nothing in the fairness ordinance prohibits HOO, a private business, from engaging in viewpoint or message censorship. Thus, although the menu of services HOO provides to the public is accordingly limited, and censors certain points of view, it is the same limited menu HOO offers to every customer and is not, therefore, prohibited by the fairness ordinance.

The dissenting judge, Judge Jeff S. Taylor, disagreed:

HOO’s conduct was discriminatory against GLSO and its members based upon sexual orientation or gender identity…. GLSO serves gays and lesbians and promotes an “alternative lifestyle” that is contrary to some religious beliefs. That lifestyle is based upon sexual orientation and gender identity that the United States Supreme Court has recently recognized. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to marry [including in a same-sex marriage] is guaranteed to same sex couples under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. … Regardless of personal or religious beliefs, this is the law that courts are duty bound to follow.

The majority takes the position that the conduct of HOO in censoring the publication of the desired speech sought by GLSO does not violate the Fairness Ordinance. Effectively, that would mean that the ordinance protects gays or lesbians only to the extent they do not publicly display their same gender sexual orientation.

This result would be totally contrary to legislative intent and undermine the legislative policy of LFUCG since the ordinance logically must protect against discriminatory conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation or gender identity. Otherwise, the ordinance would have limited or no force or effect. The facts in this case clearly establish that HOO’s conduct, the refusal to print the t-shirts, was based upon gays and lesbians promoting a gay pride festival in Lexington, which violated the Fairness Ordinance.

Finally, it is important to note that the speech that HOO sought to censor was not obscene or defamatory. There was nothing obnoxious, inflammatory, false, or even pornographic that GLSO wanted to place on their t-shirts which would justify restricting their speech under the First Amendment. … Likewise, there is nothing in the message that illustrates or establishes that HOO either promotes or endorses the Festival. …

While free speech is not without its limitations, nothing in the promotion of the Festival by GLSO came close to being outside the protections of the First Amendment. The Fairness Ordinance in this case is simply an extension of civil rights protections afforded to all citizens under federal, state and local laws. These civil rights protections serve the societal purpose of eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace.

2. Judge James H. Lambert appears to have joined the majority opinion on the question whether HOO’s conduct was discriminatory (since he labeled that opinion “the majority opinion,” which it could be only with his vote). But he also reasoned that the ordinance was preempted by the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Statute, which is modeled on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act applied in Hobby Lobby and other recent cases. He concluded that the ordinance, as interpreted by the commission, burdened the HOO owners’ religious practice, and thus the owners were entitled to an exemption unless denying the exemption was the least restrictive means of serving a compelling interests — a showing the government could not make:

There is little doubt LFUCG has a compelling interest in preventing local businesses from discriminating against individuals based on their sexual orientation. LFUCG must be able to market itself as a place where all people can acquire the goods and services they need.

Accordingly, by the plain text of [the state RFRA], the central issue here is whether the fairness ordinance is the least-restrictive way for LFUCG to prevent local business from discriminating against members of the gay community without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion. … [I]nstead of providing an owner of a closely-held business, or the like, with an alternative means of accommodating a patron who wishes to promote a cause contrary to the owner’s faith [footnote: Here, the owners of HOO offered to find a printer who would do the work at the same price quoted initially to accommodate the needs of the customer], the fairness ordinance forces the owner to either join in the requested violation of a sincerely held religious belief, or face a penalty, i.e., support the furtherance of the offending cause or take a class on how to support it. Such coercion violates [the state RFRA]. …

Taylor disagreed:

[As to the religious exemption claim,] the holding in Hobby Lobby was limited solely to the issue of whether a closely held corporation could raise a religious liberty defense to the insurance contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act. And, I do not believe [the Kentucky RFRA] is implicated in this case, as the statute does not prohibit a governmental entity from enforcing laws or ordinances that prohibit discrimination and protect a citizen’s fundamental rights. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that religious beliefs or conduct may be burdened or limited where the compelling government interest is to eradicate discrimination. See Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S. (1983) (holding that the government has an overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education).

3. Here’s my view, which was expressed in this amicus brief that my student Ashley Phillips and I filed on behalf of the Cato Institute: Whether or not the ordinance bars discrimination against messages supporting pro-gay-rights events, a printer has a First Amendment right to refuse to print messages of which he disapproves. As the amicus brief argued,

The government may not require Americans to help distribute speech of which they disapprove. The Supreme Court so held in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), when it upheld drivers’ First Amendment right not to display on their license plates a message with which they disagree. The logic of Wooley applies equally to printers’ right not to print such messages.

The government’s interest in preventing discrimination cannot justify restricting Hands On Originals’ First Amendment rights. Hands On Originals is not discriminating based on the sexual orientation of any customer. Rather, its owners are choosing which messages they print. In this respect, the owners’ actions are similar to the actions of the parade organizers in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), who also chose not to spread a particular message through their parade.

In Hurley, the Supreme Court noted that the state, in trying to force the organizers to include a gay pride group in a parade, was applying its antidiscrimination law “in a peculiar way”: to mandate the inclusion of a message, not equal treatment for individuals. And the Court held that this application of antidiscrimination law violated the First Amendment. The Commission’s attempt to apply such law to Hands On Originals’ choice about which materials to print likewise violates the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that large organizations, such as cable operators or universities, might be required to convey messages on behalf of other organizations with which they disagree. But Hands On Originals is a small owner-operated company, in which the owners are necessarily closely connected to the speech that Hands On Originals produces. In this respect, the owners of Hands On Originals are much closer to the Maynards in Wooley v. Maynard, whose “individual freedom of mind,” secured the right not to help distribute speech of which they disapproved.

Moreover, the dissenting judge’s argument about the free speech protections offered to the Lexington Pride Festival strikes me as entirely beside the point: The T-shirt would certainly have been constitutionally protected against government suppression, just as the motto “Live Free or Die” would be so protected. But people also have a First Amendment right not to display the message (as in Wooley) or to print the message.

Likewise, the dissenting judge’s argument that requiring HOO to print the T-shirt wouldn’t suggest “that HOO … endorses the Festival” is also beside the point. That was precisely the argument the dissenting justices made in Wooley (quoting the New Hampshire Supreme Court): “The defendants’ … [having] to display plates bearing the State motto carries no implication … that they endorse that motto or profess to adopt it as matter of belief.” But the Wooley majority was unswayed by that: The Maynards, the court held, had a First Amendment right to “refuse to foster … an idea they find morally objectionable,” and thus could not be forced to display the motto even in a context where no one would think that they were endorsing the motto. The same is true of people who don’t want to foster an idea by participating in the creation (rather than display) of messages expressing that idea.

You can read the whole brief here, but let me close with these hypotheticals:

Say members of the Westboro Baptist Church come to a printer — a printer who supports gay rights or who is gay himself or who just thinks the Westboro belief system is appalling — and demand that he print a “Westboro Baptist Church Pride” T-shirt.

Or say that an anti-illegal-immigrant group comes to a printer in Seattle and demands that he print a “Build a Wall / Deport Them All” T-shirt. (Seattle bans public accommodation discrimination based not just on race, religion, sexual orientation and the like but also “political ideology,” defined as “any idea or belief … relating to the purpose, conduct, organization, function or basis of government and related institutions and activities, whether or not characteristic of any political party or group.”)

Should the government be able to punish the printer for refusing, on the theory that this constituted impermissible religious or political ideology discrimination in public accommodations?

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/14/kentucky-court-rejects-government-attempt-to-punish-printer-for-refusing-to-print-lexington-gay-pride-festival-t-shirt/