#you should definitely make a post on your own about the gay male experience and the discrimination and harassment you have faced FOR SURE

[bilboyagathechickenfootedhobbit]

I feel like this is also a way to keep people so wrapped up in ensuring they’re using the “right” language and including all the necessary disclaimers that they can never really make a proper point. It’s along the same lines of how women will throw “if that makes any sense” or “but that’s just my opinion” at the end of a scathingly honest and brilliant thought/post.

Like, I’m a mother and a feminist. But if I try to make a post about how my parenting is impacted by my feminist views, I have to first include an entire paragraph stating that I consciously chose motherhood, that I’ve evaluated my reasons for having a kid, that I recognize that not ALL feminists want to or will become mothers and that’s OKAY, that I still very much defend women’s right to choose, that we live in a patriarchal society that forces motherhood on women and that I am speaking from a place of privilege having been able to make that choice for myself, that I understand some feminists do not want or welcome discussions of motherhood in feminist spaces (which I TRULY do not get but whatever), that some women who want kids struggle with fertility, that lesbian feminists may not want to hear about a het-partnered bisexual woman talking about kids, that I don’t mean to offend anyone, that this is MY THOUGHTS AND MY THOUGHTS ALONE, please don’t dox or cancel me.

And ONLY after I have made all the correct and proper disclaimers and qualifiers am I now allowed to make my post about motherhood as it relates to feminism. But at that point nobody is reading anymore, they’re attacking the comments to point out who I left out and excluded in my disclaimer.

People expressing their opinions are allowed to express their opinions without twisting and contorting themselves to accommodate every contradictory opinion out there. If you hear an opinion you don’t like or that doesn’t apply to you, okay! Great! Either engage respectfully and present your opinion and start a discussion, or GTFO! It doesn’t apply to you! Not every last little aspect of the world is meant to apply to you! I don’t get mad that I can’t use the urinals in unisex single stall bathrooms; I just sit on the toilet to pee! I don’t go and bitch to the person working that I find it OFFENSIVE that there is a URINAL that I CANNOT USE in the single occupant unisex bathroom! I just don’t fucking use it holy shit you guys!!

A lot of "queer" culture is deeply intertwined with the emergent "what about me?" culture, which is centred around people believing that every single conversation and post on the internet has to relate to them or reflect them in some measure- and if something doesn't, it's exclusionist, or exposes some deep-seeded issue in society.

I'll give you some examples:

There'll be a post talking about enjoying intimacy with a partner, how sex can be so special and sensual. And it'll get flooded with asexuals talking about "allonormativity" and asking why society "revolves around icky sex," and how "we need to cultivate a culture that isn't so centred around sex, asexuals exist too."

Someone will post about how special it is to find "the one" and share your life with them. And a bunch of "polyamorous" people will insert themselves, complaining about how "you can share your life with more than one person," and "just people forgetting polyam people exist," and "mononormativity and polyam ersaure."

A lesbian will post about how she's happy that she'll never have a pregnancy scare, and will jokingly talk about how doctors are always confused when she tells them that. And a bunch of "trans lesbians" or women dating "trans lesbians" chime in being like "well, about that..." or "trans lesbians are valid" or "cisnormative terf, lesbians like girldick."

I think people are too immature and narcissistic to realise that people are talking about their own experiences. Not everything is meant FOR YOU. If it doesn't reflect you, ignore it and move on.

And if you want to see more representation that reflects you, go create your own rather than harassing people whose life experiences are vastly different to yours.

Not everything has to be about you.

[newsatsix1986]

With the words that have been shared by some members of The Newsreader's community in the recent month or two, it's been a complex minefield for me to navigate. Outwardly I have appeared happy and business as usual, but internally it's been a bit different.

The Newsreader to me and many others is a mixture of a lot of things; beautiful stories of connection between complex characters, strong, lovable characters we can see ourselves in and can be inspired by, and stories from history that are compelling, joyous and also harrowing and gutwrenching. I try to focus on everything here at News At Six 1986, and to further tell all the stories that the writers have started, with as many characters as I can utilise for this.

For a good while this month I have been finding myself second guessing a lot of things I've done in relation to my content. It's been like I've felt alienated from the community just because I wasn't further fuelling the fire of a certain headcanon ship, and offering a holistic experience and a perspective that was different to that. Was I really seeing the show the wrong way because I personally don't follow that narrative eagerly? Was I the weird one to see it as being more than just the Dale and Tim show and wanting to create fan content focused on more than that? Was there even a place for my content at all? Some things said in relation to Dale and his sexuality - both explicitly and in a round about way - have also hit very personally for me as a bi girl too, making me question myself in that regard too; something that I shouldn't be made to feel or do.

With the reassurance of some wonderful people behind the scenes, I have reconciled that there IS a place for what I create, and there are definitely some people that will appreciate it. So continuing along this path is something that I shall do!

I want this post to serve as a gentle reminder. It is okay and lovely to fiercely love a ship in a show, but it is not kind at all to go on the posts of people who offer the different perspective to try to derail it or dissuade them from it, nor is it okay to say that the writers have made a "mistake" by not following through on your personal wishes for the show. I am personally Helen × Dale, but I will never go on someone's Dale × Tim post to dissuade them. There was one user here on Tumblr I had to block due to harrassment on my posts and also showing similar disrespect to friends and the writer's vision for his own show.

It's also vital that you ensure the way you do discuss Dale and his sexuality does not intentionally or unintentionally perpetuate messages of biphobia. He wouldn't be automatically happier if he had an intimate relationship with Tim - his self-acceptance journey is more complex than that - and his queer identity is just as valid when he's in a relationship with Helen. I wasn't any less queer when I was with my ex-boyfriend; for example, nor was I just gay in denial. My complex feelings about my self-acceptance wouldn't be automatically resolved if I had a girlfriend; there's more to it than that. Both sets of feelings co-existed genuinely. The world is more than just gay and straight - the in between exists, and as this show stands right now, that's what it represents.

Also please ensure that how you speak about Helen doesn't further spread mental health stigma or underlying misogyny - holding her to a higher standard than the male characters for the times she might make rash decisions, voices her opinions, or struggles. She should be afforded the same empathy as Dale in her moments of crisis. The show is a dual lead and her story matters too.

Michael Lucas - the show's creator - has made it very clear that Dale's love and attraction and need for intimacy with Helen is real, whilst obviously acknowledging his attraction to men, and that both characters don't neatly fit into labels in relation to their sexuality (Dale) and mental health struggles (Helen); that there is a purposeful sense of ambiguity and an unconventional nature to their relationship, but the love and care between them is undeniable. They sit authentically in the mess of life, and many have identified with them, including myself. I see myself in both of them. How lucky we are to have them, and they both should be celebrated, supported and accepted as such. As should everyone in general.

~ Erin 💖

[imagineitdearies-old]

Hello! Hope your doing well. I do have a silly question to ask as an author and I mean no disrespect whatsoever with it.

One of my favorite fanfics is misty dream by corviids. If you read the story then you know that Luke has the ability to get pregnant but it’s not an a/b/o story.

Once again nothing wrong with that. But, while I believe to be wrong I saw a comment asking how it was possible for Luke to be pregnant or in getting pregnant. Corviids themselves put a note in the newest chapter explaining that but since your writing a story on abo I decided to come to you.

Is it really wrong to go that way when writing your OWN story. I mean, does it really have to be an abo story for your characters to have the ability to get pregnant? Is it like breaking some sort of unspoken rule where if you were to break it you’re offending someone else?

Please once more I don’t mean any disrespect with this. I’m genuinely curious as to know why this is some sort of issue. And not speaking of misty dream but I’ve read countless of other stories where this is an actual issue but specifically when it comes to male pregnancy and the story is not abo.

Once again, if this ask is rude please ignore as I won’t like to bring any problems. Thank you!

(Edit: somehow this got queued instead of saved as a draft, sorry everyone for the initial incomplete post 😂)

Hi anon! I don’t find this question rude and hope I can answer in a way that's clear I’m expressing my own thoughts and opinions, which you seem to be asking for, and that I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do.

First and foremost, no, I don't think it's wrong to do *anything* in a story actually, because in the end it's fiction. If you properly tag things, people have no legit reason to complain about what they decided to click on and read. You don't have to justify anything beyond that. 'Don't Like Don't Read' is the gospel of ao3, I will always hold to it and encourage others to do the same.

Now, your further questions center around a curiosity as to why some people don't like unexplained mpreg. I know there's plenty who can't stand mpreg point blank, and always filter out that tag (which is why I always tag it even if it's only mentioned in my fics), and then some who only like it when explained as part of an a/b/o verse.

It certainly is a thought experiment as to why. Personally? I think the reason some people don't enjoy unexplained mpreg as much is because, while it is wish-fulfillment for some, to others it can sometimes feel like putting a 'heteronormative bandaid' so to speak on a queer ship--as it's very different even from a trans person getting pregnant, at least in my opinion. That can really knock me out of the story (though it may be a healing fantasy for others, i'm sure). I'm not offended--I just don't enjoy it usually.

(Anyone who feels truly offended by such a thing when they could be offended by like ANY of the real world problems we have should rethink their priorities 😂)

On the other hand, omegaverse can sometimes feel more in touch with the queer experience. Usually there is some minority and/or stigma still with being omega male or alpha female, for instance. It often involves other queer experiences too--presenting suddenly and often traumatically as alpha/omega can resonate with those who experienced body dysmorphia during puberty, and dealing with rigid societal relationship/gender roles is relatable to everyone but definitely those who are gay and/or trans.

I think heats/ruts also can resonate somewhat as a queer fantasy; both are like a cathartic release of the character's pent up sexual desire and feelings that they haven't allowed themselves to indulge in or society has barred them from, and then BOOM there is (often) no choice anymore. Being forced to accept one's sexual desire during heat/rut is not dissimilar to the tipping point many queer people have in their journey of self-acceptance, and so is yet another detail that makes the whole strange omega-canon resonate with queerness still.

(Sorry, you asked the a/b/o author this question, so you get to hear me wax poetic about omegaverse for a second 😂)

Personally, even just a small magical spell/curse/biological anomaly explanation can make mpreg enjoyable for me, but I'm not everybody. Plenty of (queer or not) people don't like mpreg at all, fantastically explained or not, and it's not your job to please everyone. There's nothing offensive about making any fictional character pregnant without explanation! It may not be everyone's cup of tea--but that doesn't mean you have to change your story. Especially among lucemond shippers, I doubt it will stop you from getting readership. And if someone jumps into your comments telling you how to write, tell them where to stick it!

Write what you want, block without prejudice, and take care of yourself anon <3

[mithliya]

Tbh I agree that Kinsey 1 bisexuals shouldn’t really be grouped with 50/50 or Kinsey 5 bisexuals. Like I fully understand why they are, it doesn’t make any sense at all to divide bisexuals up based on preference for either sex because you could basically have infinite labels (and it can prob change throughout your life, idk). But the fact is (like some of the notes on that post say), a Kinsey 1 bi is effectively and practically heterosexual, and a Kinsey 5 bi is effectively homosexual (not ACTUALLY homosexual, I need to clarify. But practically.)

Like, I am a febfem. I have been with one man (was drunk and thought I should try it) and I found it repulsive. I do have some degree of attraction for males (maybe like movie or book characters who I would never meet in real life?) but never would want to touch one or actually be in a relationship with one. Any attraction is basically theoretical. I have a friend who calls herself “a little bit bi” because, according to her “women are objectively prettier than men and boobs are hot I guess, but I’m disgusted by vaginas and would never want to touch one other than my own”. Now, according to the definitions we operate under, she is just as bi as I am. Despite having no desire to be with a woman whatsoever, just maybe gets turned on by boobs or something.

I fully agree that there’s no practical way of dividing us up but at the same time I find it frustrating that myself and my friend are grouped into the exact same sexuality and there’s no real way of specifying here. My friend will never be with a woman and back a few decades ago when it was less acceptable, would never have even acknowledged any attraction to women and would have happily lived a straight life. I would’ve struggled terribly as I only have a (realistic) desire to be with women.

I’m not arguing for the definitions to change or anything, I’m just having a rant really. Like we have the term “febfem” but that’s very niche and tbh most people have never heard of it, and that still implies a “choice” to only be with women, whether out of preference or for political reasons. I prefer women because I was born this way, not because I chose it. Just like my friend who prefers men.

imo someone primarily dating the opposite sex vs primarily dating the same sex vs dating both equally is what should be used to differentiate not where you fall on the kinsey scale. bisexuality is a broad spectrum with a wide range of experiences and sure some bisexuals will have lived experiences almost identical to heterosexuals. but i think it’s also important to be open about not actually being heterosexual & vice versa for bi ppl with strong preference for the same sex regardless and putting an end to the myth that gay & het people can also be attracted to both sexes to some degree.

also ngl your friend doesn’t even sound bi to me lol “boobs are hot i guess and women are prettier than men” doesn’t sound convincing. lots of het women sexualise female bodies bc female bodies are sexualised in general but express no actual interest in women. they just acknowledge what even gay men will acknowledge, which is that women are pretty (even gay men will say women are better looking than men).

[sunnist4rs]

Common Radfem Phrases:

A list of common jokes and phrases used in the radfem community:

Adult human female- used to respond to the what is a woman question, the word female is often used to refer to sex and therefore exclude TIMs from a statement

Brave and stunning- used when joking about how trans people are treated like hero’s after ‘coming out’

Clocking- to clock someone as trans is to realise their biological sex instantly even if they try hide it

Dogs are terfs- as animals tend to bark at males (including TIMs whether they like it or not) people will joke about specific animals being ‘natures terfs’ as they can clock (and will respond aggressively to) transfems

LGBT/Drop the T/LGB without the T- a slogan to remove trans people from the LGB community

Erasing woman- the concept that the trans rights movement is trying to replace and appropriate womanhood

Gender abolitionist: someone who believes that gender is based in misogynistic stereotypes (with atypical ‘genders’ like nonbinary being applied to GNC people) which should be destroyed

Gender fandom- the idea that the trans/gender ideology acts like more of a fandom than a real movement

Gender socialisation- the idea that the stereotypes that makeup gender are forced into your mind at a young age through socialisation so you assume they’re truth

Genital preference- a phrase used by trans people (and mocked by radfems) which they use to describe real lesbianism/gayness (eg. If you’re a gay man who doesn’t like vagina then that’s just a genital preference [some genderists claim having this ‘preference’ Is transphobic but that’s a whole other can of worms)

It’s okay to be bi- as gay/lesbian defines being attracted to the same sex (straight being same sex and bi being both sexes) if a lesbian was ok with dating a trans woman then they by definition are bisexual and they should be okay with that

Kweer- as ‘queer’ is a slur against the LGB (even though it’s become popularised and is now used as the name for the community) some radfems will censor the word when using it to describe the LGBT

Male violence- this is pretty self explanatory but it describes violence committed by men (which includes transfems)

My sex is not a costume- a slogan used to fight against men who disguise themselves as woman and claim the woman experience as their own while maintaining the capability to ditch the responsibilities of being a woman whenever they’d like (as though they’re wearing a costume [don’t think I explained this one too well])

Pornsick- describes the normalisation of porn addiction, BDSM, kink culture, etc among males (and the abuse it causes woman)

🟪⬜️🟩/💜🤍💚/🟪🟩🟪🟩/💜🤍💛- sets of emojis used to represent the terf flag in people’s bios and posts

Quesadilla test/meme- the joke that as transfems weren’t raised female they wouldn’t have been taught basic cooking skills as kids (like woman are due to sexist stereotypes) such as how to make a quesadilla

Save/protect woman’s sports/rights/bathrooms- again pretty self explanatory but as trans people are trying to invade woman’s spaces common protests to this can talk about protecting these rights

Sex not gender- a social media tag which references how woman are oppressed based on their sex and erasing that means discrimination against women goes unnoticed

Sex based rights- a slogan which indicates the fight of sex based rights which include any rights which when taken away only affect one of the 2 sexes (eg. Abortion rights)

TERF is a slur- while some people accept the title terf others fight against it with the arguement being that it is used as a slur against women

Trans cult- you may see the transgender movement referred to as a cult in radfem circles, this is because of the criminalisation of doing your own research in these groups (as well as other cult like ideologies they possess)

Trans agenda/gender ideology- the idea that the trans movement has its own secret goals (like invading women’s spaces and eradicating lesbians/gays by transitioning them and replacing them with fake ‘transbians’)

Trans rights are men’s rights- a play on the common phrase ‘trans rights are human rights’ which identifies the facts that they sex most benefitted by trans activism is men

Uterus haver- a phrase commonly used by TRAs when referring to biological women, radfems may occasionally use this title for satirical reasons

Vegan cat- is a reference to the joke ‘a trans child is like a vegan cat; we all know who made the decision (and it’s not the cat)’, implying trans kids have been brainwashed or influenced by their parents into being trans

Womanface- a slogan used to compare being a trans woman to blackface as being trans is using womanhood like a costume (see above)

Peaking- to peak is to become a terf (the radfem equivalent of becoming red pilled)

Gender critical/gencrit- the belief that while sex is inherent gender is a social construct

Gender abolitionist- someone who believes gender is a social construct which re-enforces gender roles and therefore needs to be destroyed

Peak trans- a phrase used when a tras mask slips and you can see the misogynist talking points underneath

Some more terms can be found here (this list is made for TRAs so they phrase our opinions negatively it’s still a glossary):

If you have any questions or terms you’d like me to add please let me know ^^

Here’s a link to my post on common TERF acronyms:

[claud1as]

hey im claudia/q i made this blog specifically for this kinshift but honestly the privacy is kind of nice so ill definitely post about more than just kin stuff. original posts tagged #.txt until further notice, and more info under the cut

you can call me claud or q if you want, i use he/she pronouns (im bigender but on t and basically male presenting irl) and you can call me pretty much anything but a woman/lady/man, and im a 19 year old college student and would-be math major (its a community college so the best we can do for now is an associate of the arts w a stem focus but this way i get to just go to a community college)

im also fictionkin, since i made this blog specifically for only one kintype i will not be posting a full list but claudia is my only wh13 kin and one of my two really major kins. i dont have a TON of memories but i remember enough to say my tl was relatively close to canon? at least on the surface, there are several kind of considerable gaps though.

(note because i know itll come up: i refer to myself retroactively as bigender and queerhet because thats how i understand my identity now but i really never thought of it in those terms, i did have a lot of discomfort with my identity as a straight woman though and because my gender and sexuality were so tied up in each other i eventually started to think of myself as having kind of a gay male thing going on as well, i did exclusively use she/her pronouns and mostly feminine language throughout most of my canon as far as i know but i dont really care that much anymore)

im not writing a dni because the idea of writing a dni makes my paranoia spike like crazy and also because i have a block button and no issues using it against someone who i really truly do not want interacting with me, but in general if youre, like, blatantly racist/sexist/queerphobic/ableist/saneist/whatever else and you try to follow me you can expect to be blocked. also i do try to check dnis of anyone i want to follow but im not gonna do a full background check on everyone i reblog from so if you need to block me i really dont care. thats your business curate your online experience how you want

technically this is a sideblog, i follow/ask/etc from @claud11as but thats not my real main, like i said i just like the privacy of having a second account. i shouldve made this blog its own account in the first place tbh im just too stubborn to remake now

anyways. if youre out there sourcemates please interact. go ahead stick your hand in my enclosure i wont bite. (<- factually incorrect but you should still stick your hand in my enclosure anyways its totally worth it like 98% of the time.) i genuinely would love to talk to anyone as long as youre aware that i may take a little while to respond to any dms/asks cause im not always gonna be logged in on this account

[gay-otlc]

Transmasc Lesbianism

I'm a lesbian. I'm also a straight trans man. This might confuse you, but you may want to consider looking at perspectives of gender and sexuality that differ from your own and don't fit into neat little boxes.

A definition of lesbian that has been gaining popularity in queer spaces is "non men loving non men." This was meant to be inclusive for nonbinary lesbians, as an alternative to "women loving women." However, the phrase is very flawed. I've spoken about this elsewhere, but the main points are

It categorizes all nonbinary people alongside women. In this context, "non-men" comes off as "women or nonbinary people who are basically women." Not all nonbinary people, even if they're non-men will feel comfortable being labeled as a lesbian, since the term has feminine connotations and can cause dysphoria. It's unfair to put them in this box just because they're not a man.

Attraction is complex and cannot be divided into "attracted to men" and "not attracted to men." This disregards people who use the split attraction model (different romantic and sexual orientations), people who experience alterous attraction, people with fluid sexualities, and more.

Gender is complex and cannot be divided into "male" and "all genders that are not male." The identity most blatantly erased by this is multigender identities- people with multiple genders can be both male and a gender that is not male. There are also genderfluid people who are sometimes male, demigender people who are partially male, or nonbinary people who don't identify as male but may refer to themselves with masculine terms such as boy or man anyway.

The focus of lesbianism should not be excluding men. Mindsets like this are echoing TERF rhetoric that seeks to exclude transfeminine lesbians because TERFs wrongly consider them to be men. And it's annoying to make our identity about men or lack thereof, when we don't need to be talking about men at all- our community is about our shared attraction for women, because women are great!

Awesome, we've got that out of the way. If you're still reading this and going "but you can't be a trans man and a lesbian, lesbian means non men loving non men!!!!!", then I don't know what to tell you. Read the list again? Go through the other posts linked? Maybe log off tumblr?

If you read all that and you're willing to accept that not all lesbians will fit into "non men loving non men," and you don't understand but you're open to learn, read on! By the end you might still not understand, but you don't need to understand me to respect me.

For some context, here is a description of my gender and sexuality.

Gender: I'm a bigender trans man. To put it as simply as I can, my gender is primarily male, but I also have some of the female gender. I'm comfortable being seen as solely a man or both a man and a woman, but not solely a woman.

Sexuality: I'm sexually attracted to women almost exclusively. As mentioned at the beginning of the post, I describe myself as a lesbian (or gay, sapphic, etc). I also describe myself as a straight man (or straight transmasc, transhet, etc).

How can I be both?

That's where my multigender identity comes into play. I'm a man and a woman. I'm attracted to women. This makes me both a man attracted to women and a woman attracted to women; a straight man and a lesbian.

Like I said earlier, male is my primary gender and being female is more secondary. So, I'm primarily a man attracted to women, and to a lesser extent a woman attracted to women. Internally, I perceive myself as more of a straight man than a lesbian. I get a lot of gender euphoria from calling myself a straight man, and the feminine connotations of lesbian can sometimes make me uncomfortable.

So, why do I still identify as a lesbian?

Although I consider myself and my attraction to be mostly transhet, that's not really how I interact with the world around me. I'm out as bigender to some people, but I'm also closeted in many contexts, and I don't pass very well even where I am out. This means I navigate my life as someone generally perceived as a woman, who is attracted to women. Even if I don't always consider myself to fit fully with lesbianism, a majority of people will interpret me that way when they find out I'm attracted to women.

Lesbianism is a label I found my home in, for many years, and it still means a lot to me. I spent a long time defining myself as a lesbian and existing in our community, and it's a significant part of my identity.

The way I experienced my attraction growing up was a lesbian experience, not a straight experience. I consider myself a straight man now, but I didn't grow up interacting with the world as a heterosexual child. I was expected to have crushes on boys and was mocked for not fitting into that. I was called a lesbian in a derogatory way when I was ten, and I found power in reclaiming that. When I realized I was attracted to women, I spent years feeling like a freak for it until lesbians communities helped me to be proud. Lesbian is the label that most accurately describes my history and my experience as a young queer.

Also, although the label lesbian sometimes causes dysphoria, I sometimes get euphoria from referring to myself or being referred to as a lesbian. I especially get euphoria from being a butch lesbian. I take so much joy from my butch identity. And while referring to myself as lesbian in a joking manner, with phrases like "I'm so gay for her" or "not to be a lesbian but oh my god," might not count as gender euphoria, saying them makes me happy, and that's enough for me.

So, why do I identify as a man? Because I am one.

Why do I identify as a lesbian? Because it describes my past experience and the way I interact with the world as someone perceived as a woman. Because it's important to me. Because I want to.

Why do I use these labels that contradict each other? Because these are the labels that are right for me, and I have every right to have a confusing identity.

Thank you for your time.

[irrelevant13]

My unpopular LGBT opinions

since my blog is discourse/trans related I thought I would share some of my “hot takes” 

1. Neo pronouns are inherently transphobic and ablest: I'm just going to link my post about them because its a lot to get into right here. https://irrelevant13.tumblr.com/post/653907281869750272/neopronouns 

2. Demi genders are not real: you cannot be “partially one gender” thats not how that works

3. Nonbinary is a valid gender identity: as long as you have dysphoria and are not invading other peoples spaces (lesbians, trans mens, etc) you’re valid imo. 

4. Pronouns = Gender: If they don’t equal gender then why is it called “misgendering” when you call a transwoman “he” or a transman “her”? Pronouns are used as lazy nouns to describe people. If the average person is describing a man they’re going to say “he” 

5. Gender is not a social construct: male, female, nb, are genders. These are not social constructs. Gender roles, how you express your gender, etc, are social constructs. 

6. He/Him lesbians are not valid: Gender = pronouns. He/Him are male pronouns. Lesbians are women that like other women. By using a male pronoun and identifying as a lesbian you are contradicting yourself.

7. Nonbinary lesbians are not valid: lesbian = a woman who loves and is interested in women. There are labels for woman loving NB people. trans people do not need to be changing the definition of lesbian that is literally what TERFS are afraid of. And its completely unnecessary. 

8. Micro-lables are unnecessary

9. the LGBTQIA+ Wiki is trash and should be deleted: there's so much fucking misinformation on there

10. The acronym is LGBT 

11. Asexual is not a valid sexuality: its a preference and should not be included in the lgbt community because its not the same as being gay or trans. 

12. KINK DOES NOT BELONG AT PRIDE: I understand there's a history. But kink related things do not need to be ANYWHERE near minors and pride is an event for all LGBT people. INCLUDING minors. Im probably going to make a whole post about this as well because there's a lot more to discuss about it. 

13. dysphoria is NEEDED to be trans: this shouldn't even be a hot take or a fucking debate. saying dysphoria is not needed is transphobic and so fucking invalidating. saying dysphoria is not needed to be trans is implying being trans is a choice, which it is not. i'm going to make a whole blog post about why the “you need euphoria!!” argument is flawed because its a lot to get into here. 

14. pansexual is invalid, transphobic and biphobic: pansexual is the worst sexuality in my opinion. i’m going to have to make it its own post because there is WAY too much to get into that it wont fit here.  

15. genital preferences are not transphobic: and saying they are is weird. if a lesbian does not like male genital's she should not be forced to say she wouldn't mind dating a transwoman. same with gay men and straight people. people cannot help their preferences and they shouldn't be shamed or deemed evil for them (within reason of course)

16. if a lesbian does not want to date a transwoman, its not transphobic. and if a gay man does not want to date a transman, its not transphobic: this is really just repeating the last point but it really annoys me when people call other people “transphobic” for their preferences.  

17. the Q word is a slur: and cishets using it rubs me the wrong way. 

18. Intersex people should not be lumped into the LGBT community: Being intersex is not like being trans or gay. If you feel otherwise I’d love to hear your take on this. 

19. polyamorous should not be considered part of the lgbt community: being in a relationship with multiple people is different from being trans or gay. Poly in itself is not part of the community in my opinion but there can be lgbt people that are polyamorous. 

20. The “inclusive flag” is hideous and pointless: I’m talking about the one with the intersex flag in it. the normal inclusive flag is just plain unnecessary. Trans and POC were already included in the LGBT community we didn’t need a whole new flag to “include” us. (by us I mean trans people, I’m obviously not speaking about POC considering the fact I’m very white) I guess I’m open to hear arguments regarding the purpose of the inclusive flag though.

21: Calling the gay man flag “the toothpaste flag” is homophobic: I’ve ONLY seen people refer to the flag as the toothpaste flag in a negative way and I think its rather homophobic but I haven't seen many people talk about it. 

22: Biphobia is so normalized in the LGBT community and not enough people are talking about it: Seriously this also warrants its own blog post. 

23: transmedicalism is not harmful and is needed: this is going to be one of the more unpopular opinions but transmedicalism is not harmful. also cis transmeds are very cool. 

24: “experimenting” with hormones is harmful and is NOT the way to figure out your gender identity: this shouldn't have to be said but if you aren't sure if you want to transition don't take horomones to figure it out. the affects of testosterone are often irreversible. 

I’m sure i’m forgetting some but these are the big ones I guess. Also, when I make the blogs for the opinions I said I would make blogs for, I’ll make sure I link them. 

[gingerswagfreckles]

Queer is my fave word, thanks for posting about that book, I'm gonna try to get a copy! It's just awesome to have an umbrella term for not feeling cis-hetero but not entirely certain where you fit under the umbrella yet.

Ahh yes!! You mean Gay New York by George Chauncey? That book is THE book on queer history in the US (it's really not just about NYC, but it is focused there). Not only is it the most meticulously well researched book I have EVER read, it is just. So brilliant in how it analyses the construction of and intersection of gender, sexuality, biological sex, class, race, and society. Like I read it for a class in freshman year of college and trust me I was already EXTREMELY liberal and well versed in queer discourse. Yet it completely I mean COMPLETELY changed my understanding of not only sex and gender but just like. What identity is, how much of what we see as static and natural are actually very contextual social constructs. And it really showed in a very concrete and reality based way how every identity exists and is defined through the context of its environment, and that while our experiences are very inherently real, the lines we draw around these experiences to define them are not. Like. The existence of a queer identity the way we generally think of it now did NOT exist in the same way throughout history. The intersection of so many facets of life have been interpreted so completely differently throughout history and in different places and social contexts. The queer community has never been some static and well defined club that one is or is not a member of. It is and always has been a nebulous and highly changeable social network of people with common experiences and interests who have defined their own communities in wildly different ways depending on where you look. Trying to strictly define who does or does not belong in or who has or hasn't existed in the queer community throughout history is completely pointless, because in reality we are talking about an absolutely enormous group of people who have been variously connected to and socially isolated from others, who have seen their own identities and their own communities in completely different ways.

It really highlighted for me how pointless 99% of the discourse on this website is, and how much almost all of it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what identity is. NONE of the identities we think of as inherently real are inherently real, and arguing about who should be included in a community or who's identities are "valid" just shows that you think the framework through which you understand sex and gender is universal rather than cultural, contextual, and highly individual. Like, identities overlap! Identities step on each others toes!!! Words and labels change, and people do not universally agree on what they mean at any point in time!!! You would not believe how many people who you would think of as being part of the queer community didn't think of themselves as part of the queer community, and you would not believe how many people who you do NOT think of as part of the queer community DID see themselves as part of it, and were accepted!!

Like, for example, the interpretation of what it even meant to be "homosexual" was SO different depending on what period on time you look at, what location, what social and financial class these people were part of, what racial identity they saw themselves as (and that's a whole 'nother can of worms!) Sexuality was often seen as MUCH more connected to gender performance and sexual roles one took than it is today, and a lot, I mean a LOT of men who always topped did not see themselves as homosexual/gay/part of the queer community at all, especially in working class communities. And!! Guess what!! This is the part that will really blow your mind!!!

T H E Y W E R E N ' T W R O N G!!!!!!!!!!!

They were not WRONG about how they defined their identities or how they saw themselves in relation to a certain social community!! Because they were using their OWN social and sexual framework to interpret their identities and their actions!!! And saying they were WRONG in their interpretation fundamentally misunderstands that the criteria YOU use to measure whether someone is part of an identity or social group is not any more correct or real than the criteria THEY used! Saying these people were "wrong" is to impose one's own modern and highly contextual social framework on people from the past-- and TBH it's fine to see people from the past through modern lenses, and to recognize that they would be seen as gay/a certain identity by modern standards. That's fine! But the way they saw themselves then wasn't wrong, it was just different, and your criteria for what you see as gay or straight or part of a community is just as arbitrary and based on the context of your environment as theirs was.

People like to argue with this all the time, saying things like that these individuals were just suffering from internalized homophobia, gender bias, ignorance of what this or that identity "really" means, and these people are really really really misunderstanding the point. These are usually the same people who say things like "words mean things!!" when points like the one I'm making are brought up, because they continue to misunderstand how much these words yes, mean things, but mean things within historical and cultural contexts that are NOT shared by the entire world. Like, ok, you may say our example man from the 1910s is gay whether he recognized that or not, because he engaged in homosexual acts. But what does it mean to have homosexual sex? To have sex with someone of the same biological sex? Well what is biological sex, and how do we define what makes ones biological sex the "same" or "different" from your own? Is it someone with the same type of genitals as you? That's not a universally shared opinion, and the way you define the "types" of genitals are not universally shared either. What if I told you that there have been cultures throughout history who have categorized biological sex through the length of the penis, with people with shorter penises being seen as a separate sex than those who have longer penises? So two people with penises could have sex with each other and not be understood as having sex with someone of the same sex, in that culture!

Oh, that's not what you meant? That's wrong? Why? Why? Because your personal understanding and your culture's general perception of what biological sex is is more valid and real than that culture's? Why? WHY? Could you really explain why, or is it just that the difference is making you uncomfortable, because it threatens your perception of a LOT of the ideas you see as inherently real?

And we could do the same thing with the ACT of sex! I mean, what is sex? What physical acts are sexual, and what aren't? Is it just someone putting a body part inside of another person's body in some way? Well what about handjobs and other kinds of outercourse? Is sex then some physical thing we do in pursuit of an orgasm? What if you don't orgasm? Is it not sex then? Is sex the use of our bodies to derive general physical pleasure? Well what about a massage? Is a massage sex? In some times and places, many people would have said yes!

These aren't just theoretical questions- Chauncey outlines how these differing definitions of what sex is and what makes it queer not only allowed for a lot of people we would unquestioningly think of as part of the queer community to exclude themselves, but also resulted in the inclusion of people we would never consider to be queer now. Like, most female prostitutes who served only male cliental absolutely hands down refused to give blow jobs in the early 1900s, because blowjobs were seen as an extremely deviant expression of sexuality and were understood to be part of "homosexual" activity, regardless of the sex or genders of the people involved, because it was sexual activity that explicitly was not seeking to create a baby. This was a widely understood concept at the time, and persisted despite the fact that many of these women were using contraception and therefore obviously not seeking to get pregnant. Blowjobs were still seen as perverse and "homosexual," and thus not something most regular female prostitutes were willing to engage in.

Therefore! Female prostitutes who only ever had sex with male cliental but DID provide oral sex (and many other not-penis-in-vagina-activities) were often lumped in with lesbians!!! And treated as such in arrest records and propaganda! And guess what?? As a result, guess who these women usually hung around with, and where they usually could be found? Within the queer community and queer spaces!! These women were seen by the broader society as well as by much of the queer community as QUEER, and many of them likely understood themselves this way as well!

And for the record, these questions of what sex is and what gender is and what makes it gay or straight or whatever are not questions that belong strictly to the past. Survey the general population about what act they consider to have been the one where they "lost their virginity," and you will get wildly different answers. Survey self identified gay or straight people on what kind of sex acts they engage with and with who, and you will similarly find an enormous variation in reports.

And these questions MATTER! These questions matter, not in that we have to find some way to answer them, but in order to understand that we can't, definitively, and that thinking our own perceptions of any of these things are more valid than others' perceptions is incredibly harmful and dismissive to the lived experiences of other people. You can't define other people's identities out of existence just because they threaten or overlap or contradict with your own understanding of some concept, because your definitions of literally any of the criteria you are using to try to build your boxes are ALSO up for interpretation!

Like, I'm sorry I know I am rambling soooo much but you opened the same floodgates that this book opened back when I read it. If the people on this stupid website had any understanding of the history they claim to know so much about, they would see how their attitudes of "this identity is more valid than that identity" and "you can't sit with us because you're not actually part of this or that identity because my definition is better than your definition" is nothing new or woke or progressive, but is the exact same shit that has always been done and has been used to marginalize people who's existence or behaviors threaten the status quo. Like yelling at asexual or pansexual or nonbinary or aromantic people or whatever other group that they don't belong, or that their identity isn't real because it threatens the perceived integrity of another identity...it's all so stupid!! Your identity is also just a way for you to define yourself within your cultural context! Like I've literally seen people be like "asexality isn't a real identity bc if we didn't live in a society that was so sex obsessed then you wouldn't feel the need to define yourself this way." And it's like....what?? Yeah, ok??? But we do live in this society???????? And you can say that about LITERALLY ANY identity??! Not even ones related to sex and gender! Like "you aren't really deaf and deafness isn't real, because if we lived in a world without sound then you wouldn't notice you couldn't hear." Like yeah?? But we do live in a world with sound?? So...people find this term useful to articulate their experiences? And they might even dare to form an identity around it, and maybe a community, and might even become proud of it, even though it is a social construct, just like pretty much everything else??

It just drives me nuts. We go around and around in circles without ever understanding that so much of the bigotry we face is the same thing we are perpetuating with each other, because we don't understand that it is natural and normal for people's definitions of certain identities to conflict, and for their interpretations of the world to run up against each other sometimes. And that there is no strictly defined queer community, and who does or doesn't "belong" is not a decision that any one person or even any one culture gets to make, ever.

To try to finally actually wrap back around to what your actual comment was to begin with, I think queer is a wonderful word, and that GENERALLY SPEAKING in our current cultural context, it is used to encapsulate so much of the messiness and overlap that makes people so uncomfortable, but is what makes the queer community so great!!!!! That being said, it of course has had different definitions in different time periods and cultural contexts just like everything else, and some people may still have negative connotations associated with it and therefore not feel comfortable using it to self-identify. And that's fine too, as long as you don't try to force other people to stop using the term to describe their own identities on the basis that your definition is more real than theirs, which is the opposite of what queer history is all about.

If anyone is interested in the book I am talking about, you can buy it as an ebook, audiobook, or paper copy here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/george-chauncey/gay-new-york/9780786723355/

It goes into way way way more depth about everything I'm rambling about here, and backs it up with the most research and evidence I've ever seen in one single book. The physical copy is about as thick as two bricks stacked on top of each other, so if you can't get an exclusionist to read it, you can always just whack them over the head.

[asexual-means-no-attraction]

I apologise in advance if this is actually rude or insensitive, and feel free to tell me yo go f mysrlf lmao. My issue with trans community is them not seeing women as people, at least that's what I see. FtMs feel they are better than them (because they are Men) and for them women are inferior beings whose role is to be their supportive partners, sex objects (hi, traditional gender roles), for MtFs women are fantasies made of stereotypes about makeup, dresses and ~being cute and submissive~, and when women are against this image of femininity, it's called being transphobic. What are your thoughts?

I think there's a lot to say about that topic, cuz you are right that there are people like that. But I don't think it's fair to say it's everyone in the trans community. I'm gonna break it down to explain some stuff, so get ready for a long post.

General:

-remember that there will always be bad apples. Within any group-- be it trans, cis, gay, straight, etc-- there is gonna be dicks. That doesn't mean the community they are apart of is all like that and because of that they shouldn't be used as a representative of said community.

Reasons for trans men acting sexist:

-they could just be legitimately sexist and just a shitty person

-over compensation of some kind? A lotta trans people feel like they gotta prove themselves sometimes and that can end up coming off as really rude. It gets a very "I'm better than you" vibe. Doesn't mean it's ok by any means tho. If you're being a dick you're being a dick regardless of the reason.

-resentment from how they were forced to be raised as a women when they weren't actually a women. I can see how that can cause someone to be kinda a dick. Again, doesn't make it ok but I get it.

-took the "I'm not like other girls" phase and ran. Definitely aren't like other girls cuz they aren't a girl at all. But never quite lost the "other girls are like how they are on TV" thought process that many girls get at some point. This causes them to think of girls as shallow and shitty people-- which is obviously super sexist and wrong.

In my own experience I see a lotta trans guys having a hard time accepting they're guys cuz of the whole "men are trash" thing. But I've definitely seen ones who hate on women too. But the most common type of trans man I see are the ones that just wanna live their lives, and aren't sexist at all. Most shitty ones I find online and I just ignore them. And I do feel for you cuz it seems you've had to deal with them a good deal. But like I said, I think it's something that should be discussed within the community but not used a representation of it.

Explainations for trans women being sexist:

-this one I've actually discussed in detail a good amount with trans women. It's very much an over compensating and misunderstanding thing.

Not a misunderstanding of what it means to be a women, but rather a really unsavory way to express being a women. One of the first ways a trans person comes to express or even just test and see if they're trans is through clothes. This ties indirectly into gender roles. Cuz obviously clothes aren't actually gendered. If a man wears a dress he's still a man. But with how our society is, it's easier to pass when you're dressed with how society expects.

When newly/not yet realized trans men dress in traditionally masculine clothes, it's not quite as big of a deal in most cases (key word most, everyone's situation is different) then it is for trans women. I dressed more masculine for a long time before I realized I was a trans man. Most people took it as me being a tomboy. But a newly/not yet realized trans women doesn't have that luxury. Men wearing dressed isn't normalized. So if a trans women were to wear a dress, it'd be fairly obvious in most cases that she isn't cis.

This is especially true since dresses aren't made for the biologically male body (they're barely made for most cis women's bodies honestly). So when a trans women wears a dress she looks... Off. Cuz the seams of the clothes don't fit her body type. But she wants to pass. And so she wears clothes that aren't suited for her shape, high heels, and makeup as a way to over compensate and try to pass and prove they're female (cuz they are).

You ever see those videos of little kids who get into their mom's makeup?? Or middle schools trying to look pretty and putting on so much makeup they look like a clown? How about those cis women who NEVER wear make up and have no idea what they're doing and end up looking really bad when they finally try makeup on their own??? That's exactly what happens with trans women.

I'm a trans man I have no idea how makeup works. Most cis men don't know how makeup works. Trans women often get thrown into the makeup industry with no idea what the fuck they are doing. But they know that makeup is gonna be really important to help them pass in most cases. So when they first start they just look awful. Cuz they don't know what they're doing.

Combine that with the fact that many cis men don't understand fashion either (I don't even understand fashion). In most cases, the way they're raised they're styles are gonna be really different than women's styles. So again, a trans women is being thrown into a fashion industry she really doesn't know much about. And is gonna act like a little kid who stole her mom's shoes and dresses and just looks ridiculous. Cuz she doesn't know what to do, or what looks right, or how to do it in a tasteful way, etc etc. So she takes it way too far without realizing it cuz she's trying so hard to pass with no real idea what to do or how to do it.

And all that added together can very very very easily come off as super rude to cis women. Cuz they are going overboard with the makeup and heels and everything else. It often comes off as disrespectful and insulting, as if saying being a women is all about makeup and heels. It's not intentional by any means, but that doesn't mean the misunderstanding doesn't exist. It's very much a reality.

You'll often find that when trans women do this, they calm down after a while. Cuz they REALIZE how they went too far. they realize they over compensated and it was kinda shitty. My gf is a friend's with a trans women who actively talks about how when she first came out she went way too far with being stereotypically feminine cuz she didn't know how much else to express herself and over compensated. She knows now that it was insulting and she definitely apologizes for it. It's one of the reasons why having resources for trans people is so important-- so that hopefully trans women can not only have support but also help in their transition so they don't end up over compensating like that.

It's also important to note that unless you have access to medically transitionig it's REALLY hard to pass for most trans women without going on the far end of stereotypical femininity. Cuz when people see dresses and heels they are going to think women before they think man. Thats just how society is. So naturally, they're gonna wear dresses and make up in order to pass.

-the other side of that coin is the fetish community and it's overlap within the trans community. There is-- as I'm sure you know-- many people out there who treat being trans as a fetish. This isn't someone who's kinky and trans or someone who's kinks tie into being trans. But rather someone who's ONLY reason for being trans is because of a fetish-- i.e. it's all inherently a sexual thing.

And when it comes to trans women who are into trans for the fetish, you'll often find they are the ones who take that really far distasteful representation of feminity you were talking about and don't ever calm down. They don't later realize "ah, I've been over compensating and I can relax. I literally just wanna live my life as the women I am" and instead continue on with this over expression of stereotypical femininity.

I could go and make an even longer post about the possible reasons someone has a fetish like this. But basically. There are many people OBSESSED with women with dicks, being a women with a dick, being turned into a women for sexual reasons, etc etc. It's a fetish for them, not a realization of who you actually are. And it definitely does effect the trans community and how it's viewed by those outside the community.

There's no sure fire way to know the difference between these kinds people unfortunately. And there is something to be said with how they make the trans community look. I'm not gonna give my own opinion on it unless someone asks. I'm just saying it as a possible explanation of why you've met trans women who act so overly feminine it's almost insulting to women as a whole (including other trans women).

I hope that helps you and all makes sense.

On a final note:

-especially online trying to discuss literally any topic is gonna get you accused of being [what]phobic unfortunately. So I'm not surprised you've been called transphobic for saying that sometimes the way trans people express themselves feel like they're super stereotypical and that's kinda insulting. I don't know how you phrased it, but I can get both sides. Especially since many trans people deal with hate comments. I'm not saying you are or aren't transphobic, I don't know you well enough. But so long as you respect trans people and their gender, I don't think you have anything to worry about. (Calling someone out isn't the same as disrespect as an fyi)

[soulvomit]

stuff with gender anguish about not fitting in with today’s current gender constructions

From another post I made: I need to talk about 20th century gender norms at some point as a living breathing 20th century fossil and how different it was. To most straight people, being gender non conforming meant gay, trans was on the far end of the gay spectrum, and gay was associated with being socially Not Normal at a time when you had to be Normal to get a white collar job. (The whole Normalhood thing im gonna talk about is VERY connected to mid-late 20th century construction of the white middle class.) Apropos of gender specifically... I’m not sure how 90s/00s genderfluid/genderqueer map to NB, or whether they do. It’s a big reason I am weird about IDing as NB - because it seems to mean something else than my particular understanding of my identity as it was formed in the 1990s. (Another thing is my social world being more people over 45 at this point and also I’m in a hetero relationship.) Part of 90s GQ stuff was that you could identify as a man part time, a woman part time, you could contain multitudes. “Woman-identified person with a male side” was a legit identity within that, so was “man-identified person with a female side.” You could be one person in the streets and another in the sheets. You could be several people in the sheets, especially if you were aligned with kinky culture. (And for a long time... I was.) There was a greater sense in the 90s and early 00s in genderqueerness culture that you could be GQ for no other reason than wanting to be and it wasn’t assumed to be bundled with physical dysphoria or even desire to change your public social identity. Some spaces - like West Coast geek culture and goth culture - had enough flexibility baked in that we didn’t really need to go to LGBTQ culture to explore our identities, and there was a whole geek queer sensibility that was evolving alongside of the broader LGBTQ culture that was definitely its own... thing.  And while people *say* that NB doesn’t mean any one particular thing or any of these things, that’s not always the message I get when visible NBs on TV/in film are almost always at present one very specific image or “type” of person, and that doesn’t resemble me. NB representation on TV amounts to presenting NB as a third gender with very specific codified behaviors (androgynous AFAB person who binds and has body dysphoria).   The message I get is that whatever my experience is, is better described some other way. Also the discourse around relationships with NBs is that a relationship with an NB is necessarily a queer relationship yet having been in relationships in and out of LGBTQ culture, I’m not really sure how to distinguish “a queer relationship.” My relationship is non-traditional in lots of ways and we’re both gender non-conforming in lots of ways though it doesn’t parse to most people because it’s along the lines of stuff that shouldn’t have ever been gendered in the first place. What my partner does not ever question however is his actual gender identity.  The thing is, actually publicly identifying as anything but a woman would create weird problems in my life in terms of social dynamics, and other stuff, and probably an unpredictable series of ripple effects downstream. But - that... just means I’m closeted, right? And closeted doesn’t mean your identity doesn’t exist or isn’t as unreal as someone who isn’t? And what if - as a “shapeshifter” - my relationship to myself within my relationship *is* part of that shapeshifting?  One of the things is that I’m in a heterosexual relationship. My relationship *is* one of my few spots where I’m happy in my skin, let alone happy in the world and I have no complaints with how I’m perceived in this relationship, and part of it is that practically every assumption about my gender is true, or has been true at some point, including the fact that I’m fine with being seen as a woman in the context of my relationship.  It’s in other spaces besides the intimate, that gender stuff makes my skin crawl. My deep interior gender identity is “pixels floating in the ether, which can assume any shape or form.” My gender identity among other people in non sexual friend spaces is “friend.” My partner identifies as a cis het man. I don’t feel like my relationship has any special quality that’s different from queer relationships I’ve been in, other than identities people have. If my partner doesn’t feel our relationship is queer then I don’t feel it is, either... though it’s not exactly *traditional.*  I don’t feel like our relationship is different from our hetero neighbors’ relationships regardless of whatever history I have. I have no way of knowing what my ostensibly-female ostensibly-heterosexual neighbors’ interior identities really are, or what their history is. And because we’re monogamous, it just never ever comes up. Our social world is about half queer and half not so nothing has changed. After decades of only dating people who had LGBTQ identities, and having a particular social world, now I’m with a cis het man from that same social world and nothing really has changed about the shape of my life.   I’ve moved between different spaces my entire life, sometimes I perceived myself as a boy in a girl’s body, but sometimes I didn’t, and don’t. And gender is one of the spaces in which I feel like a chameleon. There seem to be a ton of gender expression based communities that disappeared since the 90s that either disappeared or were erased from discourse and that makes this weirder/harder to talk about.  Another thing is that a lot of the discourse around pronouns (if pushed I’ll say I’m she/they but I am literally comfortable in anything, depending upon context) makes me really uncomfortable. Even in LGBTQ spaces it makes me uncomfortable. There’s the me that my friends know, and some of my family knows, and it’s a big enough world to contain that part of me at this point. I would rather not put my identity under a microscope in any space that matters. It’s weird but I wish I could just be “they” in the work, creative, etc, spaces, without the loading of what “they” means. I wish it meant nothing about the people who love me, or who I love, or how I love, or how I live my life, besides what pronoun I use. But it doesn’t mean nothing. That is why I hope more cis identified people will actually identify as they in the public sphere. There are plenty of spaces in the public sphere that I don’t think should be gendered at ALL. My wanting to be a “they” is in some ways more about wanting public anonymity and having formed my sense of self - at a tender time - online, than about my gender identity. Which means I’d be potentially appropriating “they” from people for whom it IS a deep identity, and yet... haven’t I spent half of my blog talking about how I’m not exactly the gender identity I advertise?? Haven’t I spent a long time up to now advocating for “they?” Isn’t feeling like a they, evidence that I’m a they?  And the thing is, this is such a YMMV issue and the problem is that EVERYONE has competing access needs with EVERYONE ELSE. Anything one queer person wants or needs seems to oppress some other queer person, and it sucks. But sometimes I wonder if I even need to just recognize how cis het passing my life is and acknowledge my privilege. The thing is though at that point... is it how much oppression we’ve experienced or are currently experiencing, that alone makes our identity? That’s as silly an idea as saying I’m less of a Jew because I haven’t personally experienced a hate crime. And yes there’s a lot to shared oppression experiences forming group identities, but I’m not talking about group identity. I’m talking about personal feelings of identity.

[centrally-unplanned]

I don't disagree with any of this on like the ground, and humans evolved from our past and carry that baggage forward, but I think that we should acknowledge how uncommon any of these are in modern society but people do seem to still feel this way. Modern men in developed societies are in the main not drafted, most will never be in any fight of note, certainly not a fight that has like large numbers and gender dynamics, men and women work more-or-less equally, etc. I think its worth asking instead why removing all these so-called "roots" hasn't budged the problem - in fact I think most believe that men in the past didn't feel this way, at least not in the same way.

I do think this is a real phenomenon (though not universally felt by any means), and it generally comes from social dynamics and romance, like most gender stuff does. A lot of group social dynamics are fraught and often competitive, particularly post-puberty (and 8 year olds don't feel this way anyway). And an experience a lot of young men have is that, with male peers, they really feel like they gotta work to get social respect. Sometimes its outright shaming or bullying. More often its just...a lack of attention in a social circle, the understanding that no one really wants you there. And sometimes you are perfectly socially successful but see the guys who are simply better, who get more for it, and you want that.

Then you enter a mixed-gender social setting and the girls just don't have to do that? They don't 'have' to compete, people pay attention to them anyway. Some of this is real, women with women are just as competitive but in mixed gender spaces the rules are different, they really do have it easier in some ways (definitely not in others!! but off topic). Other parts of this are abstract and internally-mediated; you want something different from female peers (remember this is 15 year old boys, they wanna fuck everything and also don't know what that means yet), you don't really grok your own place in regards to them, and because you don't hold them to the same standard you self-reflect that society doesn't either. I think this is a big source of things that "ancestral property rights" shit misses - the lived experience of many men that, sure, true crushes are rarer, but still they would probably take a chance on half of their high school peers if offered it, but they aren't offered it, and never see the other side of that coin. Even gay/queer men pick up on this dynamic from their peers, and observe a supposed gap between them and their female friends in desire.

(As long as they are hot enough of course, huge asterisk but the majority of young women are, we are gonna set this aside for now. I believe this feeling is defined by the young; the fact that older women are treated much more disposably by society is true but irrelevant to the 15 year old developing this complex)

This extends to friendships, and a lot of wider society stuff too - the romance stuff is the most explicit but similar dynamics eep out everywhere, particularly as you compare lived experiences. To give a common experience - you might be friends with a woman, not interested in her much at all romantically, but the idea of opening up about your weaknesses would make you less attractive to her, in your mind, and you can't do it. While meanwhile if she did that, you wouldn't care, how could her weaknesses make her less attractive?? This is all internal, she says nothing to you, but you feel it all the same.

Also imo most people are hesitant to say this primarily about sex/romance, that to say that would make people seem shallow. I think that is silly, and if you get over one's social shame it becomes clear that this emotional hang-up is primarily about sex & romance, even if it isn't totally (There is a second avenue for this feeling, the "failson projection", which is connected-but-different-enough but this is long enough already).

Now what some people will point to is things like dating dynamics, like oh women prefer men who make more money than them (statistically true), young men are less attractive to women than women are to men (also statistically true), and so on as causes. And these definitely hurt - using a dating app as a man definitely definitely hurts. Or even the MRA-type calling cards, like oh the legal system punishes fathers and rewards mothers, or yeah if we got to war we are expected to fight. But imo these are abstract facts, they don't cause emotions (the dating apps do a bit). Actual dating doesn't look like a credit check, someone just likes you or doesn't. Instead they inform emotions that already exist, taking something amorphous and giving it shape. People slot the social dynamic of their early lives into constructs built by media, by society, by their parents, etc. They experience a core inequality and define it by the gender relations that surround them.

i don't really get the whole "women are seen as inherently valuable while men need to earn their value" thing that a lot of people assume to be true. is there some kind of evidence that it is true? i'm not really sure how that would fit together with studies about sons receiving preferential treatment from parents and so on.

[love-n-pirates]

The Harm of Accusing DNF of Queerbaiting + Ignoring The Issue

I like to keep the stuff on this blog lighthearted and jokey and I like to just reblog art but I did wanna make another post about the kaceytron issue but specifically the accusations of queerbaiting. This is gonna be a long post so sorry about that but this stream made me really mad and I’ve put a lot of time into gathering my thoughts and reviewing the VOD again to ensure my citations and interpretations are accurate.

TW for mentions of homophobia and ableism and please remember no matter how mad this might make you as well. Don’t send any hate. Best thing to do is unfollow, block and move on, she’s already had enough of a stage to perform on.

I’ve sectioned the post into summary and thoughts with pictures in case you only want to briefly look but I tried to be cohesive enough without going on too long so hopefully you’ll give the whole thing a read. Particularly a part I wrote at the end about her using Dream as a scapegoat (titled such) I just think it’s important to keep in mind. I watched this shit a second time so you don’t have to! It wrecked my head but I’m unhappy with how they spoke about queerbaiting, which is a serious issue in media, and wanted to talk openly about it here.

At first I did feel bad for her and thought that some of it was blown out of proportion, things that she could learn and grow from but ultimately she showed no remorse and after how she handled speaking with Dream and the immature nature of the whole ordeal I can’t feel entirely awful for her anymore.

This is the tweet that started it all. Kacey is in a very similar circle to Dream and George so it makes sense that Dream stans would find it. Ignoring the sort of humour behind the fact that so many assumed it was about them, it is a shitty tweet and seems kind of irrelevant. Ironically enough, she was getting called out moments later as stans brought up prior racist, ableist and homophobic issues with Kacey. Cancelled for a little more than breathing it seems. 

One thing I wish had been asked from the get go was “Who is this tweet supposed to be about?” Kacey said it wasn’t even about them and that people were assuming incorrectly. She could’ve saved herself from the wrath of all the mc stans that came her way if she just said who it was really about. But she didn’t, which indicates to me that it definitely was about them. Not a great statement to make as a cishet woman, unprompted, especially when your influence often intertwines with theirs and when you share mutuals.

I did speak about queerbaiting before in reference to George just a couple posts down but it's blown up massively recently and I wanted to get detailed in a more general sense while using this event as a sort of case study.

For clarification I am a queer woman so I've had my fair run ins with queerbaity content etc. This is gonna be a detailed rundown of what was said with my own thoughts on it and some time stamps are included if you feel the need to see for yourself.

TL;DR

Dream and George are not the malicious straight boys they’re being made out to be. Saying they’re Queerbaiting is a disregard for their own emotional autonomy and they have been open with the fact they do not date nor do they use it for views. This argument is being used to shift focus from the important conversation which is Kaceytron’s use of slurs and arose from a stream that was made about Dream and forced him to be involved. She’s doing it for attention and should be ignored.

WHAT IS QUEERBAITING?

First of all, queer baiting is defined as "a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment in which creators hint at, but then do not actually depict, same-sex romance or other LGBTQ representation."

Technically twitch streams do fall under entertainment although I would argue that there is a certain nuance to this. We know that streamers often put on a certain persona when streaming (Tommy and Quackity are very loud in their own streams because that's their brand, then on their alts they are very laidback) but I would say that Dream and George are two streamers that are often just themselves while streaming. Particularly when they are together, it makes sense that a stream has a change in vibe when the cc is talking with a friend rather than focusing on talking to chat. Since these two usually only stream when they're with friends, we tend to see a more authentic side. We very much feel that they are real people showing their casual side. Their streams do not feel performative, this is part of their appeal.

Don’t forget that Kacey, a cishet woman, puts her streams under the LGBTQIA+ tag on Twitch. A tag only usually used if the streamer is LGBT.

SUMMARY OF EVENTS IN THE STREAM

Now, the stream. During the stream Kacey had her sister and two friends(both gay men, important for a later point) to back her up. Dream joined at about 3hr and 55 mins and already there was a distinct power imbalance in Kacey’s favour within the call. They titled it a debate yet it felt more like relentless high school bullying. They spoke for about an hour and the entire time, Kacey’s chat was spamming for her to ask about queerbaiting. Finally, one of her friends, Shaun, brought it up at about the 4hr and 43min mark.  

Now, the reason I have a few issues with this is that it seems to me that he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. You can see on his stream(in the background of Kacey’s) at one point that he has a massive text post from tumblr up that is accusing Dream of queerbaiting, saying that he gets to benefit from maintaining a queer audience but without the issues that come with being a gay man as he prefers to keep it ambiguous. That text post is super problematic, a creator is not there for your wish fulfillment or to be your idol. Also, there is a lot of assumption coming with saying he isn’t ostracized just because he doesn’t label himself. Instantly it’s clear that this post is the basis for the accusations that Shaun is making. I’m using accusation lightly here because over all I think the Shaun guy was very civil, (at least to Dream’s face) but the rest of the group were quite on the attack, particularly Kacey’s sister, Holly. (I’ll come back to her)

Shaun says that he feels that Dream and George, possibly unintentionally, are guilty of queerbaiting. Dream handled it well and said he would like to open that dialogue and asked Shaun to expand on what he means by queerbaiting and if he has any specific events that would be prevalent. Shaun says he has examples that he can pull up, which he never does, and continues to be very vague and general about it in saying that there’s been a “culture” going on for years that he’s noticed.

At this point, the other guy (I didn’t catch his name, sorry) jumps in and says there's a “clear flirtiness in attitude and undertones” which Dream agrees to. He points out that this is how he interacts with most friends, male and female, on the Dream SMP. He also points out that he acts like that with his friends both on and off camera and it’s not like he’s only approaching gay men and flirting with them. It’s clear that this line of joking is a constant in his friendships, where comfortable, and is never malicious. He even asks what their thoughts would be if he only did it with gay men and how that would differ, they don’t answer this question and the conversation moves on.

At the 4hr 46min mark is where Holly jumps in and tells of VERY personal experiences from Shaun’s past of him being tormented by straight guys in school, being called slurs and jokingly flirted with. She even tells a story about how a homophobe hit him with their car. This was very uncomfortable as it was not her experience to share and Shaun was IN THE CALL. She said that Dream’s flirtations with George could be a trigger to people like Shaun because of that experience. This shows again a lack of awareness for other people, she’s using Shaun's personal story for her own gain and not even letting him be the voice that tells it. This sat poorly with me as Kacey was already being accused of speaking over LGBT voices rather than lifting them up with her, then her sister goes and does it live. Maybe Shaun was ok with this, maybe not, it just didn’t sit well with me. At 5hr and 05mins, after Dream is gone, they mention this again and Shaun asks them to point out when he said he was triggered after he talked about his experience. He was clearly uncomfortable with the use of the word and it seems to have been put in his mouth.

Shaun then says that he doesn’t like it because here are Dream and George exhibiting behaviours that some people are often scared to do because of homophobic violence. To me, this was probably one of the only valid sort of feelings against it (Shame he wasn’t let speak more). I understand why someone might look at it that way, but at the same time there is a clear difference between messing with your friends and real life romantic flirtation. In my own personal life I know that I’ve been afraid of any sort of pda with a partner but when it comes to my own joke flirting with friends, I’m never afraid to do it. This can differ from person to person and maybe is very different for gay men but this is my own gay experience as someone who understands that fear. I think that the line is fairly clear between the real and the jokes and I honestly have no doubt that Dream and George have probably had people throw homophobic language their way but it may not have had to same effect as they don’t present themselves as homosexual.  

Worth noting that during this exchange Dream does say in passing he’s straight but it’s said in a hypothetical sort of way which leaves it unclear and he’s stated before that he doesn’t like labels and he wants to keep it ambiguous so it would be more respectful to continue thinking of him as such. Ambiguous is the way he chooses to present his sexuality and this should be accepted by everyone instead of making assumptions that he is straight. He was under pressure from four other adults to explain himself and handle accusations, anyone would say they were straight if they were being pushed like that and felt it wasn’t a safe environment. Which it definitely wasn’t and I advise that anyone who does want to watch back the VOD to turn off chat because they’re extremely toxic.

Holly proceeds to say that this makes gay people the butt of the joke, Dream says that he sees it more as the flirting with his friends as the joke, again, I’d agree with him. Depends on your humour I suppose, but arguably, anyone who watches Kacey interact on egirl rejects and stuff like that will see she often makes flirty jokes with Minx and other female friends, for some reason this isn’t seen as queerbaiting, but it’s unfortunately not brought up. I can understand why, Dream wasn’t trying to make any accusations in return, he was legitimately trying to have an earnest conversation which quickly went sour.

Holly goes on to explain how Shaun feels, by speaking over Shaun, and asks Dream what he thinks about that. Dream agrees that Shaun’s feelings are valid and says “That’s why I started this off by saying ‘lets talk about this’“. Holly gets extremely patronizing and asks if he understands it now that it’s been explained.

Dream is still very patient with them and agrees that he’s said things and learnt from mistakes and criticism that he’s received. He speaks honestly about his original cancelling and how he handled it poorly but learnt from that and has grown to be more careful and thoughtful with the things he says.

I have a real issue with this again because words are continuously put in his mouth. He’s asked several times throughout the whole call to denounce things, from people hating on Kacey to actual MASS SHOOTERS. He’s barely given space to defend himself and is ignored when he tries to say that he can’t control his fans. They just ask him time and time again to denounce multiple things.

The only time where Dream seems actually riled up by anything they say is when Holly, at the 4hr 11min mark, mentions the hashtag “Shooters4Dream” trending and says its Dream stans promoting gun violence (which was just a handful of idiots being insensitive under the tag). Dream responds to this with his classic “Oh come on” but before he can say anything else, Kacey does talk over him and says that the tag was mostly people denouncing it and tries to change the subject, but Dream brings it back and says that the tag was stupid and wrong. Holly and Kacey talk about how people were making jokes about it and Holly asks “Is it funny to you? Because your community think it is.” She’s playing such an abrasive blame game with him and he talks about how he spoke against it on twitter, they discount him, and Holly can be seen laughing at him. When Dream tries to explain the issue properly and Kacey just says, “Lets skip this, let's move on.” Dream points out that it is bad that the tag was trending, but he didn’t want to speak about it too much otherwise it would become a bigger thing. Ultimately, he doesn’t control his fans and the meaning of the tag was misconstrued massively. A matter of poor use of language and appalling timing.  

Love or Host

Love or Host is brought up a few times as an example of him flirting with George which I found interesting as he’s only been in one episode (George’s) and he was talking mostly to the girls on the show to figure out who is good for George, as that was his role. During this there was joking about how he should come before the girl and even female guests joined this line of joking. This is all part of the show and most played along with the bit, it’s not an uncommon bit for guests on the show to do. Not just Dream and George, but other guests in their respective episodes.  

I also find the mentioning of Love or Host interesting purely because, if anything, it’s the exact type of content that Kacey should hate, right? False relationships being formed? It’s not like there’s only straight people on the show as well, there’s been gay and bi love or hosts so queerbaiting, under the parameters which Kaceytron has set, is on the table. I’ve yet to see a real romantic relationship come out of an episode of LoH. This is a show purely for content and Kacey knows this, she’s appeared on multiple shows and even won Sapnap’s episode. She knows their date wasn’t real. Her sister says that many women are afraid to be on LoH because of hate they receive in the aftermath of the show and she claims it’s running its course because of this. I’d have to disagree with this (it’s a super successful show cmon) and, though a lot of people do get hate on the show, I think it’s often outweighed by the benefits they get from that type of exposure which is why people like Kacey continue to appear on multiple episodes.

What I found most interesting was what she said about her appearance on George’s episode. Mostly jokes were made about this costume: 

admittedly, it was kind of funny albeit rather creepy. However, if Kacey felt so strongly about Queerbaiting, why would she dress like that. Why wasn’t she a passionate advocate then? Where’d the sudden fire come from? I think we all know the answers to these questions.  

In response to people bringing up how she pandered by using this costume, making her a hypocrite, she said that in dressing like that she knew she was appealing to children. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many kids that want to sit through a four hour long dating show filled with adults they don’t know and stuff they don’t understand. I don’t think the Austin Show’s demographic contains an awful lot of kids, no matter who the guest on the show is. Also, the point of the show is not to appeal to the audience per se, but to the person whose episode it is. It felt like a weak excuse and another chance to try take a dig at mc stans for being younger and trying to brand them as immature.

INITIAL AFTER THOUGHTS

As I said before, creators do not owe you anything, especially not a window into their personal lives. We’re lucky that Dream shares so much and is a very open person, you don’t need to pry any more than that. When you get upset about him queerbaiting you, what you say to me is that you don’t see him as a person. It’s a level of objectification that leaves me feeling uneasy, if you feel robbed of something because of this then you need to set your priorities straight.

As Dream said in the stream, he hasn’t misled anyone. He has specified that him and George are not dating nor do they plan to (I included a SS at the end of this as well where he states this again). If he were queerbaiting then he would title his videos as though George was his boyfriend, he doesn’t do this. He makes it clear that they are friends, their chemistry is never used as a marketing device or as the main attraction of a video.  

Many pointed out the hypocrisy of Kacey’s claims. Some pointing to her own channel where she has a playlist of 16 videos titled “gay videos”

These are just a few of the videos. Within one of these videos, titled “The F Word”, she complains about reclamation of slurs and repeatedly says the r slur. She shows no remorse for saying slurs and this is part of why it’s difficult to forgive her. 

I don’t even know what to say about this video. This is extremely offensive, even if the people involved agreed to it, it doesn’t mean it's not offensive to other gay people. This clip features her sister and Shaun, who were on the call, kissing while clearly intoxicated. The narrative that gay people can be ”turned straight” is extremely harmful and is an unfortunate reality that many LGBT people are forced through. In the call with Dream, they mention how maybe some gay people are fine with Dream and George’s flirting but people like Shaun weren’t and so they should be more respectful. When it comes to a video, like the one I’ve shown above, you’d think they would follow the same thought process. This is far more offensive and harmful to the LGBT community than any harmless flirting between friends. The hypocrisy is blatant.  

Sometimes streamers are tricked into saying slurs by donos etc. but instead of saying sorry I didn’t mean it and here’s what happened, Kacey tends to jump on the defensive. Dream said to her around when he first joined the call that he understood how difficult her position was because when he was first cancelled he felt like it was very unfair. He told her that even if you don’t think you’re wrong you can’t control how other people feel and you have to acknowledge that. He did mention how he handled his cancelling badly (something he still gets shit for today despite the fact he learnt from his mistakes) and that instead of getting upset about it now, he knows you should just take accountability and move on. Kacey doesn’t register this and goes on about how terrible it is for her.  

MISOGYNY AND AGE DEMOGRAPHIC

Part of me wonders if the reason she continues to fight with mc stans is because she knows she can just call them stupid kids and call it a day. This is interesting to me as I think I’ve seen more 15-24 year olds in this group rather than young children. Maybe this is just the content I’m looking through but I actually think that her demographic is more similar to Dream’s than she thinks. It’s just easier to write them off as snot-nosed minecraft playing children. This is a theme she sticks with as she makes half-assed jokes about bedtimes and parents etc. etc. It’s boring.

Also, despite the accusations at Dream, calling him a misogynist, it actually was both Kacey and Holly who came in with the sexist narrative as they go on about how his fans are just teenage white girls. This is a clear double standard as they are trying to use both age and gender to discount the validity of their feelings.

For someone who says she doesn’t care, it sure is interesting that she’s tweeted constantly about it and streamed for hours at a time. The stream with Dream was seven hours long. She blames the fact that she accidently read a slur out on stream on her lack of sleep. As a creator, you should know your limits and when you are and aren’t emotionally ready to be on camera. Kacey clearly does not know her limits and it effects her greatly. On the first watch I skipped forward in the VOD to the six hour mark and found she was still chatting shit about Dream with her sister while playing Roblox.  

Ironic that she goes on about stupid minecraft kids while being a 30 y/o woman playing Roblox. Nothing wrong with playing stuff at whatever age but not when you’re ragging on kids for the same thing.

USING THE GAY NARRATIVE

I finally wanted to come back to the use of her two gay friends in the so called “debate”. At 6hr and 08mins she reads out a message in either chat or from twitter.

“Listen up here cishet woman, you are cishet, shut your mouth and do not talk about queerbaiting ever again, ok?”

I don’t think people should bother going to her chat to say this stuff because it only fans the flames and will not change her mind but it’s what she said after that left me thinking that she knew exactly what she was doing when she included two gay men in the narrative on her side. She says  

“That’s why there were two gay people on the show who talked about queerbaiting and how it’s offensive to them. Are they trying to speak over gay voices? Like, who are they playing?”

I find it difficult to consider this a valid point as they quite literally spoke over said gay people themselves and as I mentioned, it was pressure from Shaun’s chat that made him bring it up when it was clear he wasn’t educated on the specifics of who he was speaking with. It all felt very false and like a set up to try catch Dream out. They were essentially there for the clout they get for being plants for Kacey as long as they go along with the narrative she was pushing. They seemed dispassionate about the topic and were more interested in drama. It makes them unconvincing debators.

KACEY’S CHAT AND ABLEISM

I could barely look at the chat the whole time because they were very toxic and some even used slurs in there. Kacey claims to have created a safe space for people, particularly LGBTQ people, yet from what I saw, it was only really a safe space for bigotry and toxicity. These are just some screenshots that I took during the call.

Blatant ableism in the first one, maybe they didn’t know about his ADHD, but this was one of many and even Kacey and her sister made fun of it when he was out of the call. 

Gaslighting is a serious accusation. The definition is this: “Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where a person or group makes someone question their sanity, perception of reality, or memories. People experiencing gaslighting often feel confused, anxious, and unable to trust themselves.”  

This does not apply to Kacey; she is not questioning her sanity or being confused. She’s outright denying things. There is no gaslighting going on here, yet the chat was FILLED with it. Bitches will learn a new word like gaslighting and queerbaiting and really use it for everything oof.

Not once did he invalidate the fact that there is misogyny in the community and if anything he has expressly supported female creators very vocally and without being asked to. Writing off anything he says just because he’s a white man is not even an argument; he accepts the privilege he has and has never claimed that others don’t experience issues because of these things. This is not a misogynistic attack, this is a grown woman being asked to own up and apologize for her mistakes.

Chat continued to be extremely toxic towards Dream and even people in game with Kacey made multiple jokes about him. Here’s an example of just one.

It says ”What I wear omw to dream’s court hearing.”

They say a lot of horrible things about him and Holly even makes implications of him being inappropriate with fans which is an extremely serious thing to say and is based in NO truth.

SHIFTING FOCUS

Right before Dream left, they reiterated that they didn’t think he was a bad person because of his “queerbaiting”. This was something repeated many times throughout the talk. The implications of this language use is that Dream should be the one apologizing and that Kacey and her friends somehow were the ones with the power to forgive him. Overall, it was misguided and gross. He shouldn’t have had to be defending himself from four people at once all by himself, especially when the conversation was not supposed to be about him. And to clarify, he did not make it about himself, he started by talking about Kacey and how he had been trying to dm her about her cancelling. It was them that turned it on him to flip it in their favour.

There was an insistence that they were the victims, direct quote from Kacey at 5hr 55min and 40sec Kacey says “I am a victim, I am literally a victim of cancel culture.”  

Yes, I think the doxxing is too far and constant hate doesn’t do much but Kacey needs to acknowledge that her words hurt a lot of people and she needs to own up to that.

Even after Dream left, they continued to chat shit about him, with Shaun even saying at about the 5hr 16min mark that he thought Dream had “perfectly scripted” his responses in a way that meant he wouldn’t have to denounce his fans. Of course he won’t talk crap on his fans when they’re the reason he is famous and he knows it’s a minority that ruins it for everyone else, he’s said he doesn’t like people who spread hate calling themselves his stans. The idea that Dream could have prepared a response to the questions and accusations thrown at him from a cast of half high and fully ignorant strangers who are all almost 10 years older than him is ridiculous. He was clearly out of his comfort zone and was a complete curveball for him. This leads me on to the main reason I think Dream was dragged into this.

SCAPEGOAT

If we’re being real, this is a clear attempt to change the subject away from Kacey. Dream is someone who people come for often, whether it’s accusations of cheating or scripting or bringing up past mistakes which he has apologized for and showed that he has grown from. He even said to Kacey that he does get death threats and he’s been doxxed before. He constantly gets in trouble because of the more radical “stans” who are a problem starting minority for the rest. Dream separates himself from those people as best as he can, but he knows himself that he can’t escape that brush he’s been tarred with. Kacey also knows this.  

By bringing Dream into the narrative, she’s successfully shifted the focus of the conversation in a way that favours her. That stream conversation should’ve been about Kacey and the things that she has said, instead it was a grilling session from four strangers for Dream. Now people are very focused on that aspect of the whole thing (myself included ofc but this post is specifically about qbaiting accusations so) rather than the important part which is holding her accountable for her use of slurs.  

It’s not her first attempt at this as she made a twitter post about how she was no.1 trending despite a mass shooting taking place. Of course this is terrible that that would be higher up but it was an obvious blame passing as this reply points out.

She knows what she’s doing and has shown no sign of stopping. It’s best that she’s not given any more attention now but just try not to watch anymore content with her in it. As I said before, don’t bother with any hate, just block and move on. For a creator complaining about all the “kids” coming for her, she doesn’t act all that much older despite being fully grown at 30 years of age.

CONCLUSION

At 6hr 42min 30sec Kacey mentions that she is number 2 on trending to which her friend replies “Good job Kacey”, she laughs. It’s clear that she does this for attention, her friends are there for clout and they are all irrelevant clowns looking to get a career boost out of creators more successful than them. They don’t stop to consider others’ feelings or empathize towards anyone. Kacey will say herself that she got her start from baiting on 4chan, this is her brand. It’s just unfortunate that she seems to think that she’s doing something just when, in actuality, she is causing a lot of damage to the LGBT community and invalidating many people with her unapologetic use of ableist and racist slurs. Her friends congratulate her because it's obvious it’s the attention she wants, this is why she streams for so long and tweets so much. She hit a far higher viewership on this stream than she normally would. I’m sure this sort of hatred does affect her negatively, whether she notices or not, I hope she gets the help she needs to become a less selfish person and to become more productive with her time.  

Remember again to not send hate, just block and move on. I also recommend that you don’t watch this stream but if you are going to then watch a reupload on YT so she doesn’t get money out of it.  

I was very uncomfortable after watching the stream, especially with all the false allyship with the LGBT community. People like Kacey act like this to get views whenever they’re losing their following. Just don’t fall for any bait and petty jibes that they throw this way. Don’t let any anger get the better of you and just lets move past it as it can’t be healthy for people like Dream to have to see this on his TL as well, which he will if we keep interacting. Though I do think that for now, it’s pretty much over.  

For all the talk of how hateful this community is, I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve found most people very pleasant and the CCs themselves very accepting of all types of people. I’ll leave off with these tweets Dream made at the end of last year. Stay safe folks, be positive and kind to each other! Much love <3

[aropinions]

So What Is Exclusionism, Anyway?

As I've looked through inclusionist circles, I've come to a startling realization that most of them have an extremely skewed understanding of what exclusionism is (along with its various offshoots, subtypes, and related beliefs). They equate it to hatred of whatever group is being excluded, and they don't think people part of the excluded group could ever support exclusionism.

So, I've decided to write a long post to clear up some of those misconceptions. This post is mainly targeted to inclusionists and people wondering where they stand on the inclus/exclus sides of various types of discourse, but if you're exclusionist already, please feel free to reblog or boost it. <3 Thanks in advance for reading!

I'll start by introducing myself. Hi, I'm Ivy, or at least that's what I go by on here. I am a heterosexual, aromantic female. I am neurodivergent (ADHD, so forgive me if I ramble or write in a scatterbrained way) and have several other mental illnesses that I don't wish to talk about online. I do not have gender dysphoria, but I do not "feel feminine," and my personality has been described as rather masculine. In fact, many people in the inclusionist trans community have tried to convince me that I'm nonbinary because I don't feel a strong connection to a female gender, and I'll talk about that more later in this post.

I'm going to put all my relevant discourse opinions on the table right now. (In the next paragraph, I'm going to explain what all these labels actually mean and why they don't automatically make someone a horrible person.) Contrary to popular belief, I am not a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF), an aphobe, a transphobe, or a bigot. I am ace-exclusionist, aro-exclusionist, trans-exclusionist, transmedicalist, pro-LGB, and gender-critical.

Now here's the fun part. Bear with me -- we're about to debunk the myths about these opinions, explain each term's real definition, and talk about some of the reasoning behind the beliefs.

Exclusionism, as a blanket term, is the belief that gatekeeping is necessary to make any group or community meaningful and safe. Various types of exclusionists fight against the lumping together of various marginalized identities or groups, because they believe that letting different types of people into spaces meant for more specific groups will detract from the safety and functionality of those spaces. They do not hate the groups they are excluding, and they typically want to exclude both ways. For example, ace exclusionists don't want allosexual LGBT let into ace spaces any more than they want asexuals let into LGBT spaces. Many exclusionists in LGBT discourse support the exclusion of groups that they themselves are part of, because in addition to the idea that it's harmful to the main LGBT community to lump them into it, they also think their group deserves its own recognition as a separate thing from the LGBT community. Exclusionism is not hatred.

Time to get into more specific terms. Let's start pretty simple, with truscum and transmeds. Someone who is truscum believes that people must have dysphoria to be trans. Someone who is transmedicalist believes that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and that transness is a medical condition synonymous with gender dysphoria. All transmeds are truscum, but not all truscum are transmeds. Most truscums and transmeds are against MOGAI, neopronouns, gender microlabels (e.g. genderflux or demiboy), and xenogenders. Most truscums believe in nonbinary people. There are some transmeds who don't believe nonbinary dysphoria is real, but they're not the majority.

The direct opposite of truscum and transmed is "tucute," which denotes a belief that dysphoria is not required to be transgender and gender identity is completely unrelated to biological sex or medical disorders/conditions. Tucutes also generally support MOGAI, xenogenders, neurogenders, microlabels, and neopronouns.

Next, we have bio-essentialism. Bio-essentialism is the belief that oppression is based on biological sex, not gender identity, and that identifying as a different gender than your birth sex doesn't automatically mean you are oppressed. This doesn't necessarily mean bio-essentialists believe that gender doesn't exist or that you can't identify as whatever you want, just that your social oppression is based off your biological sex. Not all bio-essentialists are truscum or transmeds, but most are. Bio-essentialists prominently use the terms "male" and "female" to describe biological sex rather than gender identity, and non-radical ones will use "man" and "woman" as blanket terms that include transmen and transwomen while maintaining "male" and "female" as words for biological sex only.

Then, we have the big bad term, TERF. I've seen a lot of people misuse the TERF label, so I'm going to try to clarify its actual meaning. The acronym stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist." It's important to break that down into two main parts -- TE and RF -- because trans-exclusionists are often called TERFs when most of them don't fit the "RF" part of the acronym at all.

Trans-exclusionism (TE) means that you believe transgender issues/discourse/activism should be separated from LGB issues/discourse/activism because they are fundamentally different. L, G and B all have one thing in common: being attracted to people of the same sex as you. T is about someone's gender, not their sexual orientation, so trans-exclusionists believe that the LGB and the T should not be lumped into the same community. It doesn't mean they think trans people deserve less respect or are not real. Most trans-exclusionists are also truscum or transmedicalist, but not all are. Many trans-exclusionists who are also feminists are gender-critical, but not all are. Pro-LGB is a synonym of trans-exclusionist, but in my experience, people who describe themselves as "pro-LGB" are more likely to also be gender-critical than those who identify themselves as "trans-exclusionist."

Radical feminism (RF) is a subset of feminism that -- in addition to general feminist beliefs -- is anti-porn, anti-kink, against the makeup industry, and very often openly misandrist. Radical feminists are not always trans-exclusionist, and trans-exclusionists are not always radical feminists (in fact, most aren't). Most radfems are anti-capitalist, and all are against pink capitalism and rainbow capitalism (the commercialization of feminist ideas, gay rights, etc.) Most radfems are truscum or transmedicalist, but not all are.

All TERFs are also gender-critical. "Gender-critical" people are bio-essentialist, but they go a step further to say that gender identity is a meaningless term, and that biological sex is the sole basis of oppression. However, one can be gender-critical and still support trans people if one is a transmedicalist. GC transmeds believe that trans people are still oppressed in society according to their biological sex, not their gender identity, but that social/physical transitioning is acceptable as a treatment for the mental disorder known as gender dysphoria.

Neither trans-exclusionism nor radical feminism is inherently transphobic or hateful toward transgender people. To differentiate a regular trans-exclusionist from a TERF, ask yourself if the person fits the radfem beliefs outlined above. If not, they aren't a TERF.

Now that all of that is covered, we can talk about the last couple types of exclusionism I want to touch on -- asexual exclusionism and aromantic exclusionism. These almost always come together as a package called aro/ace-exclusionism or aspec-exclusionism, but it is technically possible to be ace-exclusionist and not aro-exclusionist (or vice versa), though I've never personally met someone with such beliefs. Aspec-exclusionists believe that aspec people should not be included in the LGBT community because the lack of sexual or romantic attraction is a completely separate struggle and involves separate experiences than having attractions that exist, but are not heterosexual. Some more extreme aro/ace exclusionists strongly gatekeep aromanticism and asexuality. These ones don't believe in microlabels on the "aro spectrum" or "ace spectrum" such as demisexual or grayromantic. They maintain the belief that if someone has sexual attraction (regardless of whether they actually pursue people sexually) then they are not asexual, and if someone feels romantic attraction at all (even if they don't pursue romantic relationships) they are not aromantic.

Aro/ace-exclusionists, regardless of their beliefs on aromantic and asexual spectrums or microlabels, are not inherently aphobic. They only want aromanticism and asexuality to be separated from the rest of the LGB or LGBT community, and treated as their own distinct identities.

I hope this post was informative, and if anyone has feedback on anything I should edit, they should let me know in replies. Regardless of your beliefs, if you actually read this whole post or even just scrolled to the bottom, I'd like to offer a sincere thanks for bearing with me thus far. If you are an inclusionist or otherwise disagree with the things in the post, but you read it anyway, I have a lot of respect for your willingness to hear opinions other than yours rather than blindly blocking out everything you disagree with.

No matter who you are, I hope you have a great day. <3

[remythologise]

Hello! I found your blog via you amazingly summarizing all that's going on with the spn drama. Due to my schedules, rl stuff, some of the arcs that didn't vibe with me, my availability to find a place to watch...the rollercoaster I was used to with this fandom was more me binging it in a weekend to going months to over a year without watching it. I still haven't watched the last season(but with a fandom this big it's pretty impossible not be spoiled so I more or less know what happened) BUT oh great one I ask of thee for more information if you have it...other than being busy and whatnot, I'm not really one to keep up with the actors as well. So could you also maybe do a summary of all the stans? I'im seeing terms I haven't seen before. Who is Kelios(sp?)? Hellions?? probably messed it up but like...I guess what are the name of each legion? Who do they have alliance towards? What was their desires? Que paso?!?!?!?

Hi there! 'Some of the arcs that didn't vibe with me' me emotionally quitting Supernatural in Season 7 after they killed Castiel 😂 Anyway I totally get it, I went through the same culture shock mid-last year when I got back into SPN and tried to find where fandom was at! There's really a LOT of lore and content after 15 years though so I'll just do the broad brushstrokes based on my impressions and personal stereotypes PLEASE remember this is oversimplifying groups and individuals to tendencies and I'm very biased! Also important that there are sub-factions within sub-factions - again, I'm simplifying here!

I've also linked to the 'Super-wiki' in terms of some definitions because the Super-wiki has pages for them where the Fandom-wiki does not. Great introduction actually - only in the Supernatural fandom. There are two Supernatural wikis. One, through curation and twitter activity, supports BiBro/Wincest factions and does not support Destiel users. One is more neutral or Destiel-friendly (I don't know that the Fandom wiki has a personality/social media presence per se). You cannot make this up. There is a factional war... within use of fandom wikis.

Destiel faction

People who primarily ship Dean/Cas, love Castiel and (often, although not always) Jack, and the 'found family' of Supernatural as well as the brothers, and like the post s3 seasons too. Hated 15.19 and 15.20 for killing Dean and ignoring the other characters/narrative arc of the show. Nicknamed 'Destihellers' by the Wincest faction as a derogatory term, 'reclaimed' and shortened as 'Hellers', a nickname they use affectionately to describe each other. See more info on nicknames here.

Sometimes also ship ‘Cockles’ (the ship between Misha Collins and Jensen Ackles) although generally speaking they're more respectful of the wives of the actors than J2 shippers, who are notoriously responsible for... a vast series of insane-fan misdemeanours. Historically most were also good at keeping RPF to themselves and not harassing celebrities with it directly, although recently, particularly with younger twitter fans, that has not been the case.

Sub-factions:

The ‘Desticule’ or ‘Destiel tumblr’ - general grouping of Destiel-shipping tumblr users around 20-30 years old, usually LGBT+, most who came back to the show post-15.18 after leaving it for various reasons including getting sick of the queerbaiting. Funniest bitches alive etc. and responsible for the best text posts you’ve ever seen. Can also start stupid discourse and in-group drama when they’re bored.

'POLOL' - People of Lots of Letters, a discord group (of tumblr and twitter users) that ran on the assumption Andrew Dabb was playing a hugely intricate game of 3D chess to do with gnostic symbolism among other things, and would make Destiel canon. Have since had their own factional sub-wars and fallen apart a bit. Some of their meta was and is good and interesting! Some of it was wildly off the mark. Now generally insist that Dabb/the writers were all pushing for Destiel canon and the network is entirely to blame.

Twitter fans (TikTok edition) - younger fans around 18 and younger who (FOR REASONS BEYOND ME) started watching the show around 2018-2020. Definition of 'stans'. Tend to be very loud and aggressive on twitter when Events Happen, which like. I do get, because they've grown up in a completely different media environment and this kind of Dinosaur Politicking around LGBT+ issues is beyond them. Fancam central. Anyway stream #CASTIEL for clear skin!

Twitter fans (AO3 edition) - older fans around 30+ who kept going with the show but either don't have a large tumblr presence or just prefer twitter. A lot of fic writers, GISH-ers, and BNFs in this group. Some of them are very cool and reasonable in their opinions, some of them act like the younger stans. Some of them too accepting of what happened wrt 15.19-20 in my opinion, because, in contrast to the younger twitter stans, they grew up expecting Destiel to NEVER be canon or respected. 'Can't believe we got this far' etc.

Multiship faction

Multishippers or shippers of things not as large as the two main behemoths . Sub-factions based on shipping, e.g. Megstiel and Sastiel. I don't think these groups are very large though, and seem to have very little influence in the Discourse.

Wincest faction

LARGE overlap with the 'BiBro' faction and their opinions, which I'll get to. Ship Sam and Dean romantically. Often pretend to be BiBros on places like twitter and reddit in order for outside groups to take their opinions more seriously. 'Wincesties' etc. are derogatory nicknames given by the Destiel faction.

Sub-factions:

Multiship fans - ship Sam and Dean but respect Castiel/the 'found family'. Politically overlap with the faction of multishippers, I think. I don't have a lot of insight on this group of people honestly, but I know they exist.

Bronlies - the typical BiBro and 'Wincest' shippers most people think of, twitter user 'Kelios' is one of the would-be ringleaders of this faction - typically tend to be older white midwestern women. Historically have been pretty nasty on twitter (leading to Robert Berens, writer who made Destiel canon, occasionally subtweeting Kelios). Also tend to ship 'J2' - and take it very seriously as a legitimate thing that is really real. This is called 'tinhatting'.

BiBro faction

People who think the show should JUST be about the brothers, love Supernatural s1-3 and everything after it should have been just like Supernatural s1-3. Hate Castiel, Jack, and the 'found family'. Largely loved 15.20. Go to literally any comments section on any Supernatural article and You Will Find Them complaining about how the show should just be about the Brothers. Tend to be older, straighter, and more conservative/Republican (and male) fans. (I am aware that the definition of 'BiBro' used to refer to people who just liked the brothers but there's no definitional difference now in the discourse.) The Wincest and BiBro faction are generally much more wealthy than the Destiel faction (they being younger and more diverse/queer/left-leaning in general) and would be the biggest revenue generators at conventions etc.

Sub-factions:

Reddit bros - literally anyone who visits r/supernatural. Well, that's not fair - there are people who post reasonable opinions on there, but it's pretty rare and they get downvoted a lot. Like to talk about 'toxic Destiel fans' 'ruining the show' and how Dean is a straight man who is straight and could never possibly be gay. Might even think the confession was platonic despite all evidence to the contrary. I'm Not Homophobic I Have Gay Friends, But No Gays on MY Show!

Old Guard - group of older fans who overlap strongly with the Wincest faction, but might not necessarily ship Wincest.

GA faction

'General Audience' - These are the group of audience members that aren't 'online' so to speak; most watch the show on TV as a Casual Viewing Experience (are therefore also sometimes referred to as 'casuals'. Mostly their opinions tend towards BiBros, but they have a vast range of baffling views thanks to being Not Online and usually Not caring about Supernatural that much or thinking that deeply about it.

Sub-factions:

People who simply watch Supernatural on TV and then don't think about it very much after that.

I said they weren't 'online' but that's not entirely true; I'd probably classify people on Supernatural Facebook Groups as GA, along with friends of friends who post statuses about how 15.20 was a neat finale that wrapped up the series.

Conclusion

Supernatural is famously the show that appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, literally All Orientations, so there's a WIDE range of factions. However, most warring online boils down to Destiel vs. Wincest/BiBro - the war that started in Season 4 and has simply never ended. In terms of the 'actors' and their stans, in general, Wincest/BiBro fans love Jared, like Jensen, and dislike Misha. Destiel fans love Misha, like Jensen, and dislike Jared. Of course as with everything, there are variations and this is just a generalisation. But that's the summary of it, from my perspective!

This didn't even get into Sam girls, Dean girls and Cas girls. God. Anyway.

Hope that answered your question, anon!

[doberbutts]

She's doing the "pornsick male vs straight girls fetishizing gay men" thing. Only fujoshi like yaoi and superwholock and (I think OFMD but could be Black Sails, both of which are pretty tumblr popular and both of which have qctual queer representation) and shipping and focus on straight male characters in gay relationships. Only pornsick men fetishizing lesbians like yuri and catgirls and sexualized young anime girls and furry art that is unapologetically fetish fuel.

It's pretty typical terfary.

Dogwhistles in her initial reply are:

Comparing gender to race. Man people with bad radfem logic do this all the fucking time. Since race is not something you can really change about yourself (barring discoveries made in your own journey of learning your family history, which doesn't change your race but does change your understanding of your racial background), sex has to be too, and sex = gender, so whatever sex you are is whatever sex you will stay. There are people who've unlearned the sex = gender part of it but believe the rest and it is very annoying to inform people over and over again that that is terf influence in their theory.

Anti sex work. While some feminists aren't terfs and still are anti sex work, it's usually combined. She's also anti kink, but not on this post, and again that's pretty typical. Also it's interesting that she accused me of being pro sex work despite me not really ever talking about my feelings on sex work primarily because I think sex workers should lead that conversation and I am not nor have I ever been one.

Definitions are unchangeable and will never shift- once defined a certain way it will never be different than how it is currently defined. Ties into a lot of the logic on whether it is possible to trans one's gender.

"When is a label a lie if we allow self-determination" is a big one- because the next step would be to say that men who claim to be women are thus lying assholes and not people with some sort of connection or proximity to womanhood. There's a reason I answered the question on race the way I did- I'd assume there was some sort of connection there even if I can't see it myself and then continue to not care. But you sort of have to play 5D chess with this logic and identify dogwhistles as they happen because they're trying to get you to agree with them that trans woman are just lying men and trans men are just lying women.

I didn't engage much with the sex work portion of the second respond because A: I've already pegged her as a terf I'm not going to change her mind B: she talks like a former sex worker and when I looked into her blog I discovered that she is. I don't claim to know much about the way sex work works in this country let alone hers (Germany) so I'm not going to argue these points. But I can tell immediately that she doesn't spend a lot of time in kink spaces and probably does not like kink (correct) because I used to be in that puppy server and I can tell you that people have made absolute bank doing sex work they very much enjoy with only a handful of partners. It's not a common situation but I've literally seen it happen. Her experience is different, but it tells me a lot about her beliefs and how she shaped them.

"Female homosexuality" is a big one, as well as "person identified as a woman". Making the distinction between the two is what matters.

Lastly the erasure of men in sex work and as trafficking victims as well as the through-gritted-teeth allowance of adjacency to womanhood for trans women sex workers (and *only* adjacency and not full womanhood, mind) as well as forcibly grouping gay men into that same adjacency, *and* the erasure of WOMEN who serve as paying customers and the part WOMEN play in trafficking as well... again, I don't know how it works in Germany, even as an outsider looking in I know that this isn't quite truthful representation of what's actually happening. Similarly, the focus on sex work specifically when discussing human trafficking, ignoring all the other reasons trafficking happens because then she would have to admit that while gender plays a role in how this happens, trafficking is a universal and widespread problem that affects more than just women for sale as sex slaves.

Genuinely, I believe the best way of protecting yourself from this type of ideology is education and living your life with the compassion and grace afforded to others as I described in my OP. She stopped responding because I took the wind out of her sails so much that she herself had to admit that although we disagree strongly on an ideological standpoint, what I'm saying still tackles the problems that she's concerned about even if it's not the way she wants them to be tackled.

"Well are you a [controversial identity] supporter???"

My friend I do not know what to tell you here. My rule is and remains "I don't care what you call yourself because your actions and who you are as a person is more valuable to me" and "as long as everyone in the situation is an adult and is giving enthusiastic consent I genuinely do not give a fuck what you do" and "words are stupid and people are complicated so it doesn't matter if The Words Are Wrong as long as it makes you happy"

I'm a longer tables not higher walls kind of guy. Have a seat. Break bread with me. Tell me a story over dinner. I think that'll be better for the both of us.