#reasons why i had to get rid of using the asexual label was because people assumed i was just 'not interested in anyone' | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

greypetrel · 14 days

Note

1, 9, 11 from the pride asks for any/all your blorbos (or, if you don't wanna decide, your main girls) c:

No no let's do them all! Thanks for asking! :D

Tis the prompt list (Please ask me others I have a wip wednesday at the ready but glaze won't process it and I'm grumpy)

1. What's your oc's gender identity? What's their relationship to their gender?

Alyra, Aisling, Garrett: CIS. Aisling doesn't care very much, but she tends not to be super-comfortable with overtly feminine presentation out of them being less practical and allowing her to move less. In the modern AU she'd be BUGGED by purses and will hate them to bits, must have both hands free. Garrett also will like to experiment with gender. I can picture him playing with corsets and why not, wearing skirts. "It's so comfy and fresh!". He really doesn't care.

Raina: Non-binary. She is comfortable in her body (beside periods, she'll get gladly rid of her uterus), will use she/her as pronouns... But will be much bugged by presenting herself as feminine or fully masculine. Long hair and dresses made her feel ill at ease with her own body and herself, but she likes makeup. She doesn't like the definitions of both genders and won't recognize herself into either fully.

Radha: Agender. Will say that gender is a social construct and are just identities people like to attribute themselves, and she isn't convinced in the concept as a whole. Won't choose any for herself, she's just "her". Uses she/her for commodity and habit.

9. Are there cultural or lore specific aspects to their identity? If applicable, does their species affect it?

Aisling: She internalised, in canon, a little bit too much her gender and sexuality, because of the social pressure in having children on her own, eventually, to pass her magic on. She never really questioned it because she felt like she had to perform and be feminine enough to be a mother one day. In all the other AUs she experimented much more with sexuality and gender expression. She had a brief butch phase in the DadWolf AU, it lasted little because she doesn't really like herself with too short hair.

11. Is your oc open about their identity? Are they more lowkey or more blunt about it? Why or why not?

Alyra: It's her own damn business, why would you like to know? She's open, but she will tell you only if she has a reason for it and question your motivations if you insist on asking her. Why would you need to know, just because? Being pan and poly is the first thing she says to people she's interested into, tho. She likes all the cards on the table. Raina: It was a problem growing up and caused bitterness between her and Leandra, so no, she won't be open about it as a first instinct. She doesn't act to make it a mistery, particularly when Merrill is around, but she won't go around in lesbian flags. Garrett: He's on top of the Pride cart, painted in glitters in the colours of the bisexual flag and throwing pink, purple and blue flowers at the crowd, singing Born This Way at the top of his lungs. Yes he's open look at his boyfriend isn't he the cutest. Aisling: Pretty open about it, doesn't find anything weird in it. Yeah sure she's bi, what about it? Will wear pins and go to the pride all dressed in blue purple and pink. Radha: She doesn't like to be perceived in general so no. She's just vibing, doesn't like labels. Will admit she's agender, but asexual? Only with HIGH approval and with a reason. Particularly she'd be closed about it with (older) elves she doesn't know, to avoid the "pass the magic gene on". She's happy in being an aunt and spoil her nephews, her notebook is filled with their drawings and that's it, thank you.

#pride oc ask #at pride parades raina and garrett switch characters LOL

5 notes · View notes

multitrack-drifting · 1 month

Note

hey, um, idk if this is rude or not, but I saw in one of your reblogs about aroace alastor that you said that most aro/ace/aroace people identify the way they do because of trauma, and I feel a bit weird saying this but that sounds really offensive to the people who have been told that they are only aro/ace/aroace because of nonexistent trauma to invalidate their sexualities (I have been told this a few times by people who try to claim that my asexuality isn't a thing & that I'm just afraid of sex because something bad happened to me even thought that isnt even true). Yes, there is a percentage of aro/ace/aroace people that identify that way due to some form of trauma, but that doesnt mean most of us identify this way because of that. I'm not trying to undermine or invalidate your experiences, I just wanted to point that out because it came off as offensive to me and might come off that way to others. If it wasn't your intention to sound like that, I'm sorry, but the way it was worded made it seem like it was

it's not rude, it's okay to discuss sensitive topics. yeah, that's why i said it might be a hot take. i had a feeling like people might not like it (because of a kneejerk reaction of me sounding exclusionary or smth), but i didn't exactly know the deeper reason why. like, all of the about 8 or whatever people i know who are aroace are aroace in some way because of trauma/uncomfortable previous experiences/being mentally ill or autistic. i thought it'd be a ratio of like 90/10 of people who had some trauma to do with sex or romance/people who are just like that naturally without accompanying issues. but then again my pool to draw conclusions from is me, eight people i know personally and people i see online lmfao, so it wouldnt be surprising if im wrong. i would have no idea how it would be to just be aroace without for example autism making it hard for me to understand others, severe depression fucking with me, or me having experienced childhood sexual trauma

aromance/asexuality is so hard to discuss because when people say the word it could mean any of 17 different things. being traumatized and therefore uncomfortable with advances, just not being interested in romance and sex from the get go, having depression or hormonal issues and having these feelings dampened and altered, people not being comfortable with hypersexuality being pushed on them by the culture and people around them and therefore identifying as asexual, anything really. its a billion of different subgroups, and you can't exactly put people in neat little boxes because it's complex and it can be a lot of these reasons

(not related to you but to what people said to you) also something being "from trauma" should never invalidate it, that's stupid. you can't get rid of trauma. trauma stays with you and shapes who you are and how you see the world, you just mitigate it and learn to live in a more healthy way after it happens. it doesnt fucking despawn after therapy exactly. so to me, labeling something as coming from trauma doesn't mean it's "not real" or "can/should be fixed so you can be made normal". it's a way of understanding yourself, beginning to feel comfortable with yourself and finding new ways to live your life

i guess i should have specified that i think the feeling of "desperately wanting to be in love but being unable to (because you're incredibly uncomfortable with it even though you want it)" that you see in a lot of aces writing a lot of romance and obsessing over fictional pairings as a way to experience romance themselves is uniquely trauma-based and it just sucks when people are like OMG DONT SHIP THE ACEARO CHARACTER bro i AM the acearo character. it sucks even harder that people who are so enthusiastic about keeping aroace characters void of romantic and sexual interaction can be so aggressive about it

the people that were trying to convince you you're "afraid of sex" throughoutly suck fuck in any case bc bruh why would they even care, that's your business

0 notes

zeoia · 3 years

Text

I like language

I like video games

I like anime

I like monsters

I like horror (both campy and legitimately good)

I like animals

I like music

my favorite color is actually BLUE, not purple like some people might think

my favorite drinks are lemonade... and i guess ginger ale. i dont do alcohol.

if i played a sport i think i would want to play volleyball.

#hi dont mind me #im just rediscovering myself #did you know that your perceptions of yourself can be skewed if people push their perceptions onto you #its one thing if people tell you that youre smart and funny or something like that #but if people are saying like #what your sexuality and gender are without YOU saying it #then its best to take a step back and be like #wait a second buddy thats not it #reasons why i had to get rid of using the asexual label was because people assumed i was just 'not interested in anyone'#i can find someone aesthetically pleasing yknow #and i also desire romantic bonds with people soooo #dont define me ffs

6 notes · View notes

bourneblack · 3 years

Note

thanks for being a willing ear, bb. honestly i'm not sure if this counts as discussing fandom discourse because it doesn't actually deal with discourse and it's just so venty and more personal; it barely even has to do with fandom, really. i also get nsfw at points and i'm not sure if some of it counts as tmi but i'm warning for that here too. please know that you can delete this ask if it makes you uncomfortable or you just don't like it.

okay, so basically...i'm not sure how to be gay or trans correctly? cause uh, god this is mortifying but, you know a/b/o and mpreg right? those really awful sex tropes in fic? i used to read them constantly. i used to read a/b/o because i found it super hot and it aroused me enough that i was capable of ignoring my bottom dysphoria, and because of that i was able to masturbate regularly and enjoy myself. i read mpreg for the same reasons, but also because it was a way of indulging my impregnation and pregnancy kink without triggering my bottom dysphoria.

this was of course before i learned that those tropes were misogynistic, homophobic, and transphobic. and even though i hadn't known then, to this day i still feel awful that i couldn't figure that out on my own, as a trans man myself. i truly did let my people down, reading those fics, even if it was unknowingly.

and so, i haven't read any a/b/o or mpreg since...late 2019, i think, maybe earlier than that, and i haven't masturbated since then. well no, that's not right, i tried to consume other gay erotica in 2019--i already had tried visual porn but it does absolutely nothing for me--without a/b/o or mpreg, just basic vanilla stuff with p-i-v sex, and it either ended with me feeling not aroused enough to ignore my dysphoria, thoroughly unaroused, extremely uncomfortable, or outright in tears in the case of reading p-i-v; just overall nowhere near in the vicinity of an orgasm. so i just...haven't masturbated since, it just hasn't been worth it to do.

i wanted to say that i'm not asking you to tell me that the fic sex tropes listed above are Fine, Actually, i just wanted to talk to you about this because i...would like some direction on what to do? like how do i get rid of the bottom dysphoria? and if i can't get rid of it, how do i make it feel so insignificant that it doesn't matter. same with my pitiful and severe hang ups surrounding p-i-v sex.

i'm just asking for a little direction from someone who i think knows what they're about; what else erotica/kinks are gay trans men supposed to read, because i just...haven't been able to consume the usual stuff trans men like. and because of that i feel wrong, but mostly broken, and i don't know how to fix it. i honestly don't know what's wrong with me, and why i can't be like everyone else.

that's...all i have to say. and uh, sorry, as well. this is probably awful. have a good day, for me?

*cracks knuckles*

First things first, and this sounds cliche, but it's true, and will be true, until the end of time:

there’s no right way to be gay or trans. In fact, it’s the other way around. “Queer” came about when a human being who realized they did not fit under the standards of straight and cis decided to give themselves an identity. In that identity, sub-labels of gay, trans, lesbian, bi, asexual, etc etc formed to specify that experience. But we all forget that no one is obligated to take any of these labels, nor or they obligated to fit *one* experience. I bring this all up because while labels are important identifiers, you should never feel limited by them.

There is no ‘supposed’ to. There is only you.

And that shit’s scary!

But I’m here to tell you that you are not alone in this.

I can’t tell you straight up what is the *right* erotic experience and what is the *wrong* one, because the truth is is that the things that get you off are things you cannot control, and are things that probably won’t match even another gay/trans person. It’s also important to not assign shame to what it takes for you to get there, because what gets individual humans aroused is something that scientists don’t even fully understand.

We can only control what we do with it, and how we let it shape us.

I can give you is my experience, and hope it helps. I don’t have the answers to everything, but I’m hoping something about the process I had to go through to get here might help?

I started reading m/m stories, usually with cismen, and m/f stories, cis on both sides. I felt the p i v was, well, nice, but something about it wasn’t super appealing. It took me a few years to realize that I was transgender, that’s what was missing in the equation.

Makes sense, now I read (and write) mostly m/m stories, still with cismen, because that’s what gets me off. I sometimes enjoy m/f fics, but only if the women is written well, and mostly because I think oral is gr8.

I still do read a/b/o, get off to it a lot, because I more believe that its the not the trope that’s problematic, but its execution. It’s relieving to me to have an omega male character because look! that’s me! I recognize this is not the tropes primary use.

The latest thing I’ve gotten into is m/ftm which has lately been my niche, especially when the story is written by a trans author. My favorite is stories about transmen that top, that have bottom surgery, that are strong and muscular and powerful, because that’s the image I have in my head of who I want to be and look like. I love them paired with brats because I have a type it seems, and I also love them because I’ve figured out through this whole process what I actually see myself as. I’ve spent a long time trying to fit into identities, and now I’ve found myself and can pick a direction and take it.

There is also power in dark fiction. I went through a period of time where I enjoyed those types of stories because it not only represented what I was feeling about myself at the time, it gave me the ability to act on those feelings in a manner that hurt nobody while I figured out where to find my self-worth. Dark fiction can play an important role in processing struggle.

There are probably other things. Silly novels that use funny names for dirty bits are a good way to take the intensity out of sex. Audio is fun, whether it be dirty talking, or simply just the *sounds* of someone getting off. I still enjoy those as well.

And lastly, if none of these fit... write your own version of what you want to see. I’m serious. I started writing because I wasn’t finding what I wanted to read. My first drafts of everything are absolutely atrocious, I still have them, but it represented myself and I’m so proud of it. Even if you write it on a sheet of paper then shred it before anyone sees, getting that out of you will help you understand what you are really looking for.

I honestly hoped I could help, at least if not by my response, by lending an ear. My bottom dysphoria is less related to sex and mostly related to image, and my fixes for that have been to buy and wear boxer, pack a sock (or two if I want to impress) and bind my chest.

My ask box is always open for stuff like this, never feel like it’s a burden coming here and needing a place to vent. I wish you well, and I hope that you can find your way through this struggle.

Lots of love, BB

#trans #dysphoria #lgbt #fanfic #slight work unsafe #long post #Anonymous

6 notes · View notes

incarnateirony · 5 years

Text

Thoughts.

So I finally watched Good Omens. First of all I know some people were waiting for me to like, do breakdowns on the use of lore, sigils and whatnot -- I’m sure I’ll poke at it eventually, but so much of it reads of typicality, alongside strong artistic liberty, that when it comes to actual sigils there’s very few and I’ll need a good screen of them.

But that isn’t about that. This is actually about Good Omens and the audience response to queer content and queer coded content. I’m going to warn you, some of this shit is going to incense the fuck out of woke tumblr. It’s going to be a lot of hard pills to swallow, mostly in regards to parts of the LGBT community -- of which I’m a part -- moving around our own goal posts, inconsistencies in the placements of our goalposts, and the impacts of het culture. If you come into my mentions screaming away at me expect an ignore or a block.

No, this isn’t anti-Azri/Crow. It’s very pro Azri/Crow. And yes, I’m going to drag other fandoms I’m in, into it. But I’m also gonna drag general discussion into it.

First I’m going to source a link to a recent set of tweets someone made that I consider very insightful (x) and then highlight a bulk of it.

“When we call something queerbaiting, we're essentially saying: "source material X doesn't count as real or valid queer representation." Here is a thread on why we need to be cognizant about which real-life queer people & stories we're erasing when we expand our use of that term. First: actual queerbaiting, in which art-creators hint at queer representation in order to attract viewers and then insist their art was 100% hetero all along, sucks a lot. I am not advocating getting rid of the term. Nor am I saying it's not valid to feel jerked around when a show uses the promise of a specific queer relationship on their publicity circuit, and then doesn't follow through on it in the actual source. (Or follows through only to write out a character, a la #TheMagicians) However: when we narrow our definition of "real and valid queer representation" until the ONLY thing that counts as queer rep is on-screen queer *romance* or on-screen queer *sex*, we are telling a significant portion of the real-life queer community that they don't count. When we use the "queerbaiting" label to describe a millennia-long, loving asexual same-gender relationship (aka #GoodOmens) we are telling asexuals in loving life-long relationships that they don't count as queer. We are also telling sexual queers whose primary, life-organizing relationships are queerplatonic (me, this is me) that their queerness is defined only by who they fuck, not by who they choose to build a life with. I want a space where ALL kinds of queer stories get told: romances yes, but also stories of queer friendship; queer mentorship; queer animosity; queer competition and cooperation; queer found family; queer provocation and queer mistakes. None of that happens if we tell everyone whose queer content doesn't fit into the narrow box "Lead A & Lead B kiss and/or fuck onscreen" (even if A&B make a life together; even if A&B kiss & fuck other same-sex people) that their art is exploitative & doesn't count as queer rep. “

Why am I choosing to highlight this while implicatively mentioning my adjacent fandoms? Well, because blogs I follow that either haphazardly dismiss, say, Destiel as valid until (personally met goalpost, generally when arguing with the hetnorm or anti community wanting a kiss) are all on the Azriphale-Crowley bandwagon.

And let me say, I adore the Azriphale-Crowley bandwagon. I’m ON that bandwagon. Holy shit am I on that wagon, but we need to inspect our dialogue for people who are on one but not the other.

We can say, for example, “Well, Neil Gaiman and the actors have been supportive! So THAT’S why it’s fine!” I mean -- aren’t people always banging on about post-affirmation not being enough, or just vague support being enough, or this-or-that not being enough? Like people don’t flame Rowling over that? I mean, even if we handwave away that Neil Gaiman had literally uncontested authorship instead of 203492 hands in the author and ownership pot top-to-bottom which the average show doesn’t have -- which gives the liberty to say whatever the fuck he wants because it is wholly his product and under his contract and design -- do you notice that it’s actually a very, very small audience crowing about that? And rarely if ever the same ones that do about other pairings that could be considered similar? Like we haven’t gotten those moments from authors in other shows (Robbie Thompson “Destiel isn’t canon?” comes to mind) that we yell queerbait at then and decide isn’t enough. Because someone else moved a goalpost out.

Ah-- but they’re... confirmed asexual and agender and immortal! Okay... and... so is, for example, if we’re going to tilt this way, Castiel. And ace people can have queer relationships with bi or yes, even straight people. Mindblowing, I know, but that’s it, that’s reality.

So why on gods green earth am I seeing this disparity between blogs about the same content, banging on at different volumes of what we expect?

It’s something I’ve written about before, the loudest example being my Problem With DreamHunter post. Before any DreamHunter fans pick up the pitchforks, don’t worry. It, also, is in support of DreamHunter, but simply addresses the cultural problem in there not being a problem with DreamHunter. The blend of intersectional issue disparity between MLM and WLW, and also the simple fact that the fandom wasn’t positioned to have antis or rival ships screaming at it: het culture and shipping culture.

I’ve banged on about this before: in our race for representation, we often trample over content that’s perfectly good and valid and great in many ways, because we want to be able to win an argument against an asshole, we want to be able to bludgeon the gay so inarguably into somebody’s brain that they yield to the might of it, or at least, we imagine it reaches that point. Anti-shipping culture can be so loud that even slow burn het pairings that kiss will have antis explaining their way around it (eg, Mulder and Scully, off the top of my head). Anti queer culture will talk down men or women even making out on screen as experimentation. This cycle will continue.

So again, let me state: Good Omens is a masterpiece. I am utterly enthralled by it, but it does leave me sitting flummoxed about the uneven bars we put out there as marker posts based on trying to race to the finish of arguments.

I’m sure some hack job that doesn’t know how to rub brain cells together beyond “it’s straight” and, beneath the surface, “I don’t like it so I’m going to piss and moan about more expansive methods of thought than hard niching the complexity of human relations” is going to roll in here, thinking yelling “Jensen Ackles thinks it’s straight!” in supreme reductionism of things like authorship, be it intent OR death of the author, or whatever else is out there in this medium -- I’m sure they’ll show up, make the same repetitive ass of themselves as always, and roll on, completely missing the point that I’m not obligated to your arbitrary bullshit, and that nobody is.

I don’t HAVE to point out every single time a dickhat on a loop yells that, that Jensen Ackles himself spoke of the intangibility of the deepness of their connection with Castiel as an angel, and that a cishet dude from texas probably doesn’t understand the finest details of LGBT identity complexity despite being an ally while fumbling over talking about the difficulty of putting a label on it. I don’t have to explain that the actor doesn’t actually get to determine that. Viewership or author, take your pick. I don’t have to explain the “it’s never happening and wasn’t intended” never came from the authors every time some bumblefuck says it -- that it came from one account with a blurb that said he doesn’t speak for that writing room whatsoever. I don’t have to review the times that Jensen Ackles has almost verbatim mirrored the Good Omens creatives about the beauty of it being you being able to make your own interpretation even if it wasn’t his, and encouraging that. I don’t fucking have to, you entitled sniveling shits.

And no, it’s by no means about, say, Dean and Cas. It’s just about the dialogues I’m tired of seeing tilt unevenly even between typically well grounded and centered people.

So anyway Azriphale and Crowley are EternityMates and that’s the fucking tea. Call it queerplat or call it queerromantic I can see either, even if I do tilt towards the former. Destiel is queerromantic and you can fight me. Come at me. Except nobody really will over Good Omens, just Supernatural, because like magic, Good Omens isn’t geared for a fuckton of other bloated ships or antis who hate either of them by structure alone. And that, itself, is a point to be made, too.

And before some doodlefuck trolls along, no, there’s no such thing as incestromantic. Spare us the time and block me now if your knee jerk counter-troll is going to be subtextually along those lines, because I promise you’ll just get blocked when you try to roll into town with it. Since the Supernatural fandom seems to house corners of douchebags that don’t know how to control their primitive douchebag impulses and they do come into address in this post.

Moral of the story: Stop listening to homophobes, antis, or people with agendas. Listen to the content and what has actually been said. On all sides.

If you consider, for example,

the Ineffible Husbands canon with no admission of anything beyond friendship, with the hets loudly banging one scene over with “well the others are ace or whatever” as your reason (fair), a few lunches, basic dedication and a few well placed songs, and a few supportive notes from the general creatives,

But the Hunter Husbands not canon with talked-around love yous and need yous, intentional deletion of Castiel’s agender ace aspects, in spite of there being no evident banging or kissing in the show that hasn’t been a highlight of a problem since like season what six?; talk arounds of their meals together, infinite longer and classic romantic crafted dedication, innumerable well placed songs and yes, a few supportive notes from the creatives that are buried by yourself or others beneath intentionally obfuscated arguments and spun context,

You are, whether you want to gullet it or not, part of the moving goalpost problem. Whether it’s you running to meet a phobe or an anti, or just being coded into it by the screaming around you, there is no world in which one is representation and the other is not. It’s just fuckin’ not.

It’s not.

I don’t care what you yell and scream because it’s popular in your circles. It’s fuckin’ not.

It’s not.

Either both are rep or neither are rep. Personally, I adore both of them, and anyone that has a problem with that can eat me.

Good Omens is not a goddamn motherfucking breakthrough in representation. It’s the same very valid very real form of queer coding half this site screams at because someone got loud enough to scream about it early on, generally inspired by antis riding their ass, just it’s the first and second lead instead of second and third lead, and there’s no ‘rival’ in first and second leads as being intentionally dragged into vaguery. It’s. Fucking. Not. It’s literally. The same. Fucking. Level.

Now, I HAVE been banging on that it’s the level our content SHOULD be acceptable at (well, almost; frankly I’d consider Destiel better, as the show’s overall intimacy threshold is far lower while Good Omens has parallel overtness to the coupling in the actual canon, meaning Good Omens’ playing field, for fair treatment, would be indebted to matching volume -- not saying sex since ace but louder admissions and engagements that are just as clear.)

Unpopular? Good, I don’t care. I’m tired of people screaming about completely conflicting crap.

It’s where we SHOULD be taking ownership of our content. So if there’s any breakthrough, it’s the LGBT community themselves having some sort of spark of awareness that they can and should be able to own content at that volume, largely because the fandom isn’t swamped by asshats on the other side all yelling for their own crappy agendas clogging up your heads. There’s a few queerbait shouters. And you laugh them off, by and large, and accept it as canon and rep. Funny how that works without antis up your ass.

Sincerely,

A tired queer and newborn Crowley stan.

#not spn #but kinda spn #definitely good omens #but more lgbt commentary

46 notes · View notes

knjsplaylist · 6 years

Note

I've seen many people openly speak about jungkook's sexuality, and I just want to know what your thoughts are. Do you doubt that he's completely straight either or that he could be gay?

First of all, the standard, yet completely necessary disclaimer: The following are purely my subjective thoughts about Jungkook derived from my personal perception of him and his situation. His sexuality might be completely different in reality and there is no way for us to actually know anything about it unless Jungkook himself tells us.

Another thing I might as well mention right away is that this post contains strong elements of jikook. I wouldn’t really know how to make a post about this without at least mentioning Jimin in relation to Jungkook.

If that doesn’t suit your fancy then maybe don’t read this.

Also, this is basically just rambles and my own opionon. Other people have already covered this topic so this is just a bunch of extra stuff that doesn’t really matter… I’m really selling this aren’t I?

Sorry about that, anon, and hello. Before I answer your question, I’m gonna have to tackle a little thing in your ask that bothers me; how you wrote it.

I don’t think you should be asking “do you doubt that he’s completely straight” or do you believe he “could be gay”.

Just by writing it like that you’re kind of assuming his sexuality right away. There’s nothing to say that Jungkook is straight at all except society and ingrained heteronormativity. And we can’t doubt something if we’ve got no reason to believe it to begin with (e.i. that Jungkook is straight). Jungkook could most definitely be gay. He could also be bi, pan, asexual, demi, poly, etc. Let’s try not to assume before we even start to speculate. But before you feel bad, I’m not upset with you personally as I don’t think you meant for the ask to come across like it did. However, heteronormativity is something society as a whole is struggling to be rid off or at least something it should struggle to be rid off and it’s important that we don’t let stuff like this slide. We just have to stay aware of the fact that we’ve been socialized in a heteronormative society, and be willing to recognize and learn from the mistakes we make because of it.

Now that that’s over and done with… I’m going to have to talk a bit more about assuming sexualities or people will definitely call me a hypocrite.

There’s a lot of talk about assuming people’s sexuality on Tumblr and while that’s all well and good, I also think people often mistakenly call what actually isn’t assuming sexuality, assuming sexuality.

Assuming sexuality is something problematic and generally happens because of harmful ideas like, you guessed it, heteronormativity. People are quick to call others out about assuming sexuality when that’s not really what they’re doing; there’s a difference between assuming the sexuality of a person because of a supposed normal, and looking at a specific person and deciding on your own that he/she/they, in your eyes, probably has a certain sexuality. People need to be allowed to make up their own minds about how they view and think about other people because frankly, that’s just how people function. We can’t change that and we don’t need to. We just need to be aware of the fact that we can’t know other people’s sexualities unless they let us know, be respectful, not force our thoughts or ideas on the people we’re speculating about, and support them whatever sexuality they do or do not come out as. Please correct me if you think I’m wrong about this because I’m not completely sure myself.

Alright, now we can get into it.

I’ve reblogged a few posts that speculate about Jungkook’s sexuality and all of those are, at least in my opinion, worthy of consideration and, as another sort of disclaimer, I have to say that they’ve probably affected the way I think about it a lot. You might also want to keep in mind that I am still a pretty new ARMY and have only been exposed to about three months of Jeon Jeongguk (and a whole lot of past him of course). So, while I still barely know him not that I ever will, I know for sure that I, subjectively, think he’s attracted to men. I’m not going to give you a bunch of examples of why because other people have already done that. But to mention a few:

1. Jimin,

2. Jimin,

3. Jiminie.

… I’m clearly making a terrible joke, but only in order to bring me to the point that most of it really does have to do with Jimin for me. The rest (stuff that other people have also pointed out) is basically this: all of Bangtan collectively coming out, rainbows, rainbows, rainbows (yes the unicorn, but they also wouldn’t shut up about being “Rainbow BTS” during BVs2), LGBTQ+ elements in their music, excessive m/m skinship, avoidance of heteronormative interview questions, etcetc. What most of that tells me is simply that Jungkook is in an environment where he’s had the opportunity to realize his own sexuality and where he hasn’t had to reject it. It doesn’t say that much about him in particular though, but that’s where Jimin comes in.

And I won’t point you towards moments that have made me think Jungkook is attracted to Jimin — again this is the main reason I think Jungkook is attracted to men — mostly because I don’t think I have to, but also because there are just way too many.

And not to go full jikook-shipper on you, but to me, this one look is enough:

… I’m not even kidding and there’s nothing else to say. Except that obviously, it might not be enough outside the context of Jimin and Jungkook’s relationship in general or for someone who hasn’t seen as much of Jimin and Jungkook as I have and thus has a different understanding of their entire situation. But since I have seen what I have and feel like I know what I know, it’s enough. Well actually, another thing to say about this is that I thought Jungkook was in love with Jimin, or at least had a crush on him, well before I shipped them (in fact, while I shipped Jimin with someone else. clearly that didn’t last very long, though). So I didn’t ship them but I still recognized the way Jungkook looks at Jimin, the way he acts around him, and I thought from the start that there was something there. Which made it really weird to find out how much the roles have changed in that aspect when we compare present-day Jimin and Jungkook to past them. I’m glad I had that experience because it’s a reminder that at least Jungkook’s feelings are not just me seeing what I want to see.

Moving on, there’s the entirety of G.C.F which is another main reason I think Jungkook is at least some kind of gay. Lots of people have already talked about that, though. (If you want more of other people’s opinions just go to my lgbts tag. There’s a lot of stupid stuff but important things too. Edit: so this was posted today and while it’s mostly about Jimin, what it says in the beginning about Jungkook is definitely relevant. The whole post is relevant tbh so just. Go read it.)

So yeah, I think Jungkook likes men. Maybe women too, but definitely men. And if he does like women as well, then I’d say he probably leans more towards men anyways. But sexuality is weird and fluid and honestly, I can’t really speculate about anything other than that I think he’s attracted to men.

And, I feel like I have to remind you, this is just my own thoughts and his sexuality might be completely different in reality. There’s no way to actually know unless Jungkook gets in a relationship or comes out as whatever it may be.

Finally, I’m gonna out myself pun truly not intended but very much appreciated as someone who doesn’t care that much about sexuality, perhaps because I don’t really know my own yet. That’s not to say I don’t fully support the LGBTQ+ community and as you can see in some of the posts I’ve linked, I think it’s incredible that BTS represent and support it. I also would completely support any of the boys if they chose to come out as belonging to any sexuality. But other than that I just don’t really care about their or anyone’s sexualities.

Obviously, I’m a jikook shipper, and since I do believe Jimin and Jungkook are something, and definitely that Jungkook has feelings for Jimin, I also have to believe that Jungkook is attracted to men. But I also don’t think I would have thought more about it if I hadn’t seen other people discussing it/ if I hadn’t gotten this ask. I don’t really know how to say it but sexuality seems kind of overrated to me and I don’t really get why it’s so important for people to know other people’s unless they’re trying to get in someone’s pants/are in the LGBTQ+ community and are looking for representation and support.

I hate to use this particular expression but… it’s not that deep? It’s just another label that, in the end, only means that you love certain people in certain ways.

231 notes · View notes

frabjous-fragment · 3 years

Text

a critique of lesbian discourse from a nonbinary perspective

(saw something that upset me enough to want to get my opinion out there, so here i am, turning to my tum blur dot com poe eh tree blog to engage in lgbt discourse. happy pride)

I am an agender person designated male at birth. I consider myself pansexual with asexual characteristics, but historically, I have mostly been romantically involved with people who could be painted broadly as transfeminine. Because of this, binarism that tries to divide me from the lesbian community has always stuck out to me more. I hope to illustrate to people who will keep an open mind how the dismissal of individuals identifying themselves as bi lesbians is rooted in binarism.

This carrd seems like the most comprehensive and mainstream formulation of the argument I could find, so I'll go down it point by point. Before diving in, though, I want to point out that the author, an asexual and nonbinary dfab lesbian, feels so strongly about this issue that they operate a blocklist of people who identify as bisexual lesbians on Twitter. Bear the fact that people feel strongly enough about the issue to draw lines in the sand through the community in mind, as we dissect the causes, effects, and purposes of this issue's hot button status.

tl;dr: There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

"Lesbian is not an umbrella term." It's not surprising to me that the carrd opens like this, since the entire argument requires this prior, but the formulation here is actually very weak and even concedes things that weaken it further. "These simplifications of people's sexuality were grown out of as queer people started to create labels and spaces that more accurately described them." Buckle up, because most of the rest of this post rests on this very loaded throwaway sentence. This is a simplification of the truth and overlooks some pretty unfortunate history. The fact of the matter is that bisexual and asexual people were included in the discourse of the gay rights movement from the very beginning. The Asexual Manifesto was written in 1972, and Donny the Punk, founder of the first LGBT student movement, identified as bisexual (recorded in writing earliest in 1972- incidentally, when he discusses his break with elements of the gay liberation movement, due to his treatment after falling in love with a woman in 1970). Therefore, the argument that people simply used weak terminology like "homophile" in the early days because there was not more specific terminology available to people lacks something. The cruder truth is that it was all people needed for compatibility, to go to gay hookup spots, make friends, have sex, and maybe find a long term relationship. Bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, and further subcommunities arose with the rise of gay identity politics, and conflicts of interest within it. Who would these conflicts of interest be revised out of our community's history? The answer is simple and unfortunate- sexism. Donny was far from the only individual met with the sentiment that he was a gender traitor- lesbian separatism, an unfortunate reaction to real issues the early gay movement had with representing lesbians, swept through lesbian spaces in the 70s, devastating bisexual and transgender women and bolstering the nascent bisexual and transgender movements. By the end of the decade, TERF queen Janice Raymonds included "testimony" from other bigots against two named trans women existing peacefully in lesbian spaces, in her hate screed The Transsexual Empire, quoting another TERF's writing as saying "I feel raped when Olivia passes off Sandy ... as a real woman." This is an obvious appropriation of the language of personal rights to justify bigotry, judgment, hate, and exclusion. All manner of feminists and lesbians have attempted to whitewash the darker sentiments of this period by dismissing the proponents of radical, genocidal propositions like Valerie Solanas' SCUM Manifesto as "just venting" or "fringe lunatics". (To not get too into it, Solanas went back and forth on whether or not her work was satire, in a manner I find eerily similar to what reactionaries do when they put 'this account is satire' on their Twitters.) This is easy to prove incorrect; non-buzzword, actual, political misandry had reached the highest levels of feminist leadership and academia. Observe what one of the first professors of women's studies in the world, Sally Miller Gearhart, had to say on "the male question": I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. "The future is female" is a phrase that has been effectively neutralized and recuperated by less radical elements, which I am all for. It is vague enough to work to better ends than the next two points by itself. II) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. Here it becomes more clear that, in the minds of many prominent feminists of the 1970s, women would have to be supreme over men. There isn't much of another way to interpret the statement that women must bear all responsibility for humanity. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. How would this be done? The only answer is eugenics through selective abortion imposed by the state, and genocide. Clearly, even from just a perspective of women's rights, this is inadmissible to anyone who is genuinely pro-choice on the

subject of women's bodies, even though this is not a situation we usually think of. The very suggestion of this is fascistic. Make no mistake that the modern sentiment against bi lesbians is not rooted in the same fascist gender essentialism. One denies that "benign" anti-bisexual and anti-transgender sentiments still predominate in lesbian and gay communities at your own risk. Not only are you speaking over the lived experiences of people like me, you are speaking against the statistics. Not only do incredible majorities of 88.5% of gay men and 71% of lesbian women, compared to 48% of bisexual and similar people, still exclude trans people from romantic and sexual considerations due to the subliminal sexism they learn from both mainstream society and their LGBT communities, but surveys show that gay men and lesbian women respectively distrust bisexual men and bisexual women's attraction to them and affiliation with their communities. (Also widely*... couldn't resist pointing out the common eggcorn.) "Lesbian used to be the term that described all sapphics, but isn't anymore, and that's a positive thing. Having more specific labels has allowed for people's bisexuality and pansexuality to not be erased in common language, and was a step towards getting rid of the pressure for people attracted to multiple genders to 'pick a side'. The emergence of terms like 'bi/pan lesbian' and 'bi/pan hetero' reinforces the notion of needing to 'pick a side', and obscures the common definitions of all the sexualities involved" This is that concession that I mentioned earlier. Credit where it's due, it's an elevation of the discourse to actually admit this when other people won't even do that. But it again ignores why these pressures exist, and incorrectly presupposes a demand for terminology that could be argued to be divisive without looking into why such a demand exists in reality. In a world without these terrible and stupid issues of sexism, people would simply say "I am both gay and straight" and everything would be dandy. Nobody has ever called themselves "bi/pan hetero" and I'm almost not even being hyperbolic. It's not an identity community. Proposing this just sets up the writer's argument that the terminology of "bi/pan lesbian" (and its more accurate parallel, "bi/pan mlm", which I have seen- putting aside my qualms with the limitations and binarism of xlx terminology even when the left operator is nb) divides the bi/pan community. This is the same logic battleaxe bisexuals who view the pansexual label as biphobic and attack people they see as bi (and yes, pan people are also bi by definition) use for their argument that the pansexual label divides bi people, when the only people that I see it "dividing" are the same people getting pissy about trifling points of queer theory that nobody else cares about for no proven reason. In real spaces, nobody tries to get bisexual people to line up on one wall and pansexual people to line up on the other. Pan people do not engage in biphobic discourse. The issue is empty; a non-issue. This it shares in common with the bi lesbian discourse, where the issues are not directly with the communities under fire, but instead vague, abstract, unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable notions of "omg you'll make the straights think [blank]!!" It seems like a theme where, even within LGBT, majorities attack their negations and accuse them of being divisive for asserting themselves and asking for some solidarity in return for the solidarity they provide in the community; you see this with asexual and trans people as well, but that's not what this post is about. Since the entire argument is built on this first point, I could honestly stop here, from a logical perspective. But people have strong emotional responses to the subsequent points, and without going through those, people will change "is not" to "ought not to be" and carry on.

"Making Distinct Spaces for Different Sexuality's Unique Experiences is Important." Around here is where the carrd really starts to resort to trying to twist truisms against their opponents, and on the briefest reflection this doesn't work. The idea that the term "bi lesbian" erases the distinction in between bi women and lesbian women seems to me to commit a category error by defining lesbian women as exclusively homosexual women and then pointing out the obvious truth that these women are distinct from bisexual women. The truth is, bisexual women and lesbian women are not categorically different in really any way other than their relationship to heterosexuality, a distinction easily expressed by- you guessed it- the label "bi lesbian". To reiterate and combine into earlier points: There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

"Woman Aligned Nonbinary People are Included in Lesbian Attraction". Another truism. Let's move on to the single clause of the single sentence that contains the actual argument- "implying otherwise by wanting to separate that attraction into a new label is enbyphobic invalidating lesbian attraction" So, hi! As a woman aligned nonbinary person, I am here to tell you that this is not correct! I think this is a lot easier for dfab nonbinary people and dmab binary trans women to say than is it for dmab nonbinary people like myself to say. When your identity is as arcane as "I am not a woman but I identify with women because I am of a marginalized neutral gender", a lot more people decide not to take you seriously. If you take out the bolded words, this statement becomes correct, so we're going to focus on them. The only people saying anything about non-binary people not being included in lesbianism by default are the antis and the radfems they unwittingly serve, who actually do believe that point and see it as a good thing. But unfortunately, as a dmab nonbinary person who does not get sorted as a woman under binarism, my experience has been that I am already excluded from lesbianism in practice. If you get sorted as a woman under binarism, good for you! But to say that all lesbians do is obviously incorrect, when you consider all the budding trans women who still have beards and face largely similar issues in the lesbian community. To say that this state of affairs is fine is harmful to trans people; to say that this is different from what people like me face is arbitrary, and arguably binarist. Sapphism needs to look deeper than the surface and accept a foundation built on ties of solidarity and identity with no tests of purity.

"Having a Lean or Strong Prefrence Does Not Make You Any Less Bisexual". (Preference*, firstly.) I am not sure what this truism is doing here. Even many bi lesbians would agree that preferring other women is not what makes them lesbians, their membership in the lesbian community is what makes them lesbians. Refer to the above point; each community should be built on nothing more than solidarity and identity.

"Lesbians Don't Have Attraction to Men or Men-Aligned Nonbinary People, Even When on the Split Attraction Model". Here it is, the Big Chungus of arguments in the bi lesbian discourse. This is one that is seen often that people feel very strongly about, and probably the most contentious, since the implication that bi lesbians facilitate abuse of lesbians seems to motivate how a lot of people feel on the subject. Who has the power here? The insinuation that bi women have more privilege than lesbians is silly and biphobic. Clearly, it's the abusive men who have all the power in this arrangement. So how is the presence or absence of bi lesbians going to change what abusive men, who don't believe in sexual orientation, let alone care about it, decide to do? It can only change the excuses they use, which are chosen at convenience. This is a trick that patriarchy has played on us to get us to attack each-other instead of the enemy. For such a common and spicy point of rhetoric, I'm surprised I didn't write more against it here, but I really feel that the argument against it is that simple. I'll add a personal note here, and say that the dismissal of the divergent opinions of people sorted as males under binarism, alleging that we're "rapey" and want to appropriate things that aren't ours rather than participate in solidarity, is incredibly harmful to those of us who happen to be lesbians, even by the strictest trans-inclusive definition.

"Trans Women are Women". Truism. This is by far the weakest point. Nobody is advancing "bi lesbian" as a trans-inclusive label, though as I said above, it's a statistical fact that bisexual people are much more trans-positive than homosexual people, and therefore, as a transgender person, I tend to feel more welcomed around them. Of course, that's not a categorical distinction, but an unfortunate tendency.

"A Lesbian isn't Less of a Lesbian for Previously Dating Men". Truism. This is a stronger point, but only because it is closer to real rhetoric supporting the idea that bi lesbians are "real". Bisexual women will answer the question of "would you be open to dating a man again?" in the affirmative, and homosexual women will answer in the negative. Some members of the lesbian community do not completely rule out the prospect of dating men, even though it is not something they currently pursue.

The above are the reasons why the community should not fall into the bi lesbian discourse, and the refutations to its arguments. In order to be in full solidarity with fringe members of our sub-communities against bigotry, we must not fall into needless categorical division of groups when our interests are the same. There is no antagonistic conflict of interest between bisexual women and lesbian women.

#bi lesbian #pan lesbian #bi discourse #lesbian discourse #pan discourse #lgbt discourse #pride discourse #queer theory #agender #bi lesbian discourse

3 notes · View notes