#same with straight/gay. these things can and will overlap if one for example feels like both a man and a woman | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

a-frog-in-a-bog · 6 months

Note

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/ace-report

I politely suggest you read it before you make the assumption that is aros and aces don't have problems to face.

If you don't believe us after reading the whole thing, fine, but remember that bigots don't care about our specific identities as to them we are all worth hurting; We all have the same face of hate against us, so whether you like it or not, we're fighting together

Just, give it a read; I promise it'll be worth it.

first i'd like to thank you for being polite and linking an actual source, it's the first time in all my years on tumblr that someone hasn't just plugged their ears and screamed "everyone is valid!!!" so genuinely, thank you. second, the point i was making was that aces and aros don't face systemic oppression, not that they don't have any problems. i'm gonna add and respond to some excerpts i found interesting for anyone who cares / doesn't have time to read the report themselves:

i would've liked to see a further clarifying question on this study about what kind of negative reaction the respondents feared. the only examples given were the above and similar, but we don't know what kind of negative reactions LGBT people anticipated. was it also just intrusive questions, or did they consider negative reactions to be physical violence, being fired, being killed, or being kicked out of their home? would a lesbian respondent consider "so which one of you is the man?" to be a negative reaction or an ignorant one? we have no way of knowing if ace and LGBT respondents had the same criteria for what constitutes a negative reaction

this is wildly unprofessional and would also make me (and i'm betting plenty other people) uncomfortable! not sure why this is presented as a micro-aggression against ace people when it's just inappropriate in general?

another one i would've liked a follow-up question to. is this because ace people are uncomfortable coming out at work or because there just hasn't been a reason to bring up lack of sexual attraction at work?

yeah! i agree! although i'm not sure why this is presented as what an ace-inclusive workplace would look like instead of what a... normal workplace should look like?

this is literally just misogyny. the same shit happens to gay and straight women (also as an aside, pain during pap smears is entirely dependent on personal pain tolerance and anxiety, it's different for everyone and has nothing to do with whether or not you've had sex before. just like how tight or loose a vagina is has nothing to do with how much sex you have. not trying to discredit the woman here, just didn't want to spread misinformation)

this is horrible, and obviously asexuality needs to be taught alongside hypoactive sexual desire disorder in med school so healthcare professionals can tell the difference between the two, as it seems most if not all of these examples stem from doctors and therapists either not knowing the difference or being confused about what asexuality is (since this study is from the UK i'm interested to know if ace people in other countries have had similar experiences, and if asexuality is taught in med school in other places)

again, thank you for sharing! it was very informative and i'll admit i wasn't aware that some ace people face medical discrimination, so i learned something new :) as i've said before, the LGBT and ace communities are a venn diagram, especially where LGBT ace folk are concerned. they're not completely overlapping but not completely separate. most marginalized communities overlap in some way. i know i said this at the start of my reply but it bears repeating-- while everything asexuals faced listed in this report ranged from mildly annoying to downright traumatizing, it's still not an organized legal attempt to criminalize, well, not feeling sexual attraction... and there weren't any hate crimes against aces... do you see what i'm getting at

#mine #id in alt text #lgbt #asexual #aromantic

12 notes · View notes

royalberryriku · 8 months

Text

That one post™ I read recently about being transfem gays and transmasc lesbians got me thinking about gender and sexuality and mine specifically and just... I have so many thoughts and feelings about this.

So many queers assume gender to be this: woman, man or non binary (assumed to mean agender). Yet, so many of us just don't fit into that at all. I know it's not out of malice too, and sometimes we even do know that it's not that simple and try to include bigender, gender fluid, etc in that, but even so, we always go back to assumptions; to a set bias of binary of which we struggle to undo the rules we've set in our own heads and perspectives.

Suddenly, we have limits of which do exclude other queers and even sometimes ourselves, we have hypocritical definitions and fall into a habit of drawing lines around what is This and what is That. And I get it; we want to know ourselves better, to word our experiences more exactly and describe to those around us what it's like to live as someone like us. But here's the thing; that's always not going to be 100% possible. There's always going to be differences and variation even within the same definitions and labels. No matter how similar we may be in regards to a shared experiences and shared struggles, there'll always be exceptions.

Gender and sexuality are like that. I'll expand on this below:

For those who are not transgender or who just generally struggle with this topic and don't know much about it, here's an outline:

Gender identity is, in a very general sense, one's perception of their identity as a person; it's that question of who they are and what they want to be referred to and seen as. For example, if you go up to a cis lady and start making her out to be a man simply because she has short hair, she'd get offended, right? Same case with transgender people, if you start pointing at their chest or at a beard or something like that and start assigning an identity that doesn't align with who they are, they'd get offended for the same exact reason; because they are [insert gender] regardless of appearance.

Now, with that understood, I'll continue with this discussion of sexuality, mine specifically, and then move onto my gender and it's lack of conformity.

I'm bisexual; I'm attracted to all genders, all sexes, all everythings. In fact, more so than most people I know, I have a very diverse range of things I'm into and attracted to. But not every bisexual person is like that. Some bisexual people like only certain things and some only like specific genders. We all have our own different preferences and no two people will have the exact same sexuality; because we are all unique in what we like. And even in saying that for myself, this was a journey of discovery after spending years as asexual, then a lesbian, then a heterosexual man, then someone who used both straight and lesbian to describe by love of women as someone whose gender was indistinct and now as bisexual having now realised I do love men and other genders as well. All throughout this process, I was surrounded by a community, one I still feel very connected to and have some overlap with as well. It's interesting and beautiful how these people both differ from me and yet how also similar we still are, even now.

Sexualities are here, as terms, to help us find more people who are similar; to find solidarity in a shared experience. However, it isn't to find those exactly the same because, see, that just doesn't exist. That's why lesbian and gay can actually have some overlap, that's why woman and man aren't opposites, that's why gender isn't this "one or the other" thing; because experience is far too varied to ever be narrowed down to such a degree. It's always going to be general; an inexact estimate of similarities that more or less fit a vague definition.

My gender on the other hand? Now that's even more complicated. As I said before, most assume it's a "one or the other" deal, even with non binary in the mix, but the thing is that these terms are general; they are vague and can overlap. I'm a trans man, but I'm also non binary. I am a man, and sometimes I want to be perceived as the same as a cis man, but not always. This also is something that means I may fit under being gender fluid. However, on top of that, I am more often than not two or more things at once. I'm a man, but I also see myself as a butch lady at the same time. This also fits under the definition of being bigender. Yet, on top of that? There are also times when I just feel removed from gender identity as a thing all together. This also fits with agender.

Now, for those who may not be so familiar with all these terms I'm throwing around, I'm essentially saying my identity in regards to the question "are you a man or woman" or even "so are you neither" is very fluid, but it's also both and sometimes even neither or all of the above. The hard thing is this; we have this pre-established subconscious bias that these things are all opposites, that there's a definitive line that divides them. However, in my own experience, this just doesn't apply to everyone and especially not to me who struggles to know where I'd even begin to draw such a line for myself. Woman and man are simply not opposites to me because I am something that overlaps. I'm a man, 100%, not leaning or "a bit"; I am absolutely, entirely a boy. However, my gender would be something that shifts to the same as, say, a he/him lesbian that may not feel that they are a man per se. The difference is I'm both, and many lesbians and trans men do fit into that both category and have throughout history. Take Leslie Feinberg for instance, the author of Stone Butch Blues. Or the various other cases of butch lesbians and trans men overlapping in history or being mistaken for one another. There is a blurred region that can't be asked or told "oh but which are you" or even "so you're neither" because, at least in my case, I am both. I am 100% of both and it would be inaccurate and a lie to say I am neither, as much as it would be inaccurate or a lie to say I'm one of the other.

And you know what? It's okay if we don't understand what that means or where that fits. It's okay if all of what I said about myself has confused the living hell out of you. You don't need to understand me just like I don't need to understand you or anyone else to simply coexist and respect that we're going to have different preferences and views. I'll never know what it's like to be entirely in a binary, to be able to conform because I am simply unable to if I am to truely be myself and allow whatever that is to just exist. I also don't even necessarily have to understand it, as long I allow myself to exist.

I could honestly go on and on about sexuality, gender, romance, self identity and overall the value of finding community while also loving the value of one's own uniqueness, but I'll settle with this for now. All I'll say in regards to that is that this all also applies to being aromantic, demisexual, demigirl/boy, omnisexual, polysexual, xenogenders, pansexual and many, many other terms. These are all simply here to better understand ourselves and create more understanding of experiences that may no fit into other pre-existing terms. That's awesome and something to embrace. You don't even necessarily have to worry about understanding these or remembering them all. At the end of the day, these people are all simply fellow queers and define themselves in a range of both different or similar ways to the more well known sexualities and orientations, stretching back to heterosexuality and the norm of cisgender experiences. These are all simply terms to describe the differences between each of these lived experiences; all these different people in different terms aren't so different from you and you aren't so different to them.

But I digress, the point here is that regardless of gender or sexuality, nothing is set in stone and nothing can truly all be defined with one single definition. No matter how rigid the definition, no matter who is excluded or included, no matter how much it fits you or someone else, it won't fit everyone perfectly and there'll always be differences even within those labels. That's a fact of life and the beauty of it. It's part of why I am protective of the word queer and gay; a word that means different and a word that means happy. Because to live as truely to yourself as possible, enjoy the splendor of those little quirks and unique bits to yourself, to fall in love with yourself regardless of if you're the same or completely different or what or who you are? That's beautiful and wonderful. It's something to be proud of and celebrated. And it's something I wish for all of us to be able to one day appreciate; falling in love with ourselves and our unique existences.

17 notes · View notes

rthko · 1 year

Note

So, you said Lady Gaga was maybe the last diva ... but what about Billie Eilish, Carly Rae, Lana del Rey, Florence and the Machine, Marina, and Mitski? I know I listed a bunch of artists, but I specifically choose these ones for their large queer/gay fanbases and (w/ the exception of Eilish) their lack of mainstream popularity. (I feel like Carly isnt mainstream anymore .... maybe Im wrong, though.)

There's no real formula, but here are qualities associate with diva worship as far as I see it:

-Larger than life. This might be the biggest one. Do they stand out? Are they bold? Funny? Glamorous? Would a drag queen want to impersonate them?

-Theatrical/proximity to theater. Everyone hates theater kids these days but you can't deny that traditionally this was a big deal. Not everything has to be a club banger. Ballads can be gay.

-Sexy/horny. This one is controversial, so I want to say that none of these points are "required" and certainly not this one. No one is questioning Liza Minnelli's gay icon status because she doesn't sex it up. But it's also no secret that gay men like horny women. When the Cock Destroyers duo didn't reach their possible target audience of straight men, gay men had their back. Kind of.

-Strength. If gay boys aren't crying to her that her strength inspired him to move out of Ohio, she's not a gay icon.

-Niche. A gay icon can be popular, sure, but not a crowd pleaser to just any crowd. I had a swiftie yell at me, "at least Taylor makes music for everyone and not just gays like your [presumed] fav Lady Gaga!" This irked me but I didn't take offense to it. Universality is impossible. The closest any artists came to universality is the abstract expressionists, and the average person thinks they're full of shit. But if you know your audience and intimately connect with them, that's better than any broad brush.

-Support for gay rights. This one is kind of obsolete. It's not a big deal anymore for a singer to come out in support of gay rights (the closest recent examples I can think of are The Chicks, which stood out more because they were standing against the country music establishment, and Carly Rae Jepsen cancelling that Boy Scouts concert). But if a singer was pro gay before it was cool, that stands out.

The glaring blind spot in my analysis is, hello, gay women? Lesbian/bi women music really is a blind spot for me, in part because they don't quite do the same "diva worship" treatment. But from the queer women I know, they're more loyal about listening to actual queer artists (most gay icons are straight, after all), more acoustic, more cathartic, less tethered to dance and bar culture. The main overlaps I see here are niche-ness and camp.

A lot of the singers you listed cultivate some sort of character. That's campy. Marina did this very explicitly with Elektra Heart, Lana with her whole "blue jeans fat cock" Americana thing, Florence with her acoustic witch thing. Mitski to me marks a transition where lesbian fan culture is getting more visibility in the public eye. Genuinely love that for my lesbians. But despite it all I really don't know if any are "divas" in the old guard sense. Gay is more mainstream now, the internet changed the face of diva worship (now called stan culture I suppose), and a lot of new music strives too hard for "relatability." Any true icon would feel dizzyingly out of place on TikTok. So, I'll leave that to other gays to figure out.

111 notes · View notes

fallout-lou-begas · 1 year

Note

I think you're doing God's work by shining attention on the less popular humanoid companions. I adore Cass and Raul, and it makes me sad how many people brush them off because they're hard to recruit or not #GayRep

The Cass Sweep was about my love for Cass above all else. Spite turned it into what it was as the tournament attracted the attention of people who don't even care about Fallout, but even if the tournament was run by someone with nothing but positive feelings for Cass, I still would have rallied for her the same way because it was about shining attention on her. I even had a whole thing written up for my predicted grand finals about why i think she is worth it and why she should genuinely earn her vote over (who I thought would be) Arcade and Nick Valentine. The Mean Old Cowpoke Solidarity between Cass and Raul was just icing on the cake, I was amazed that Raul beat both gay companions back to back lmao.

I have absolutely nothing against Arcade and Veronica to be clear, and we joke about the sweep being homophobic (straight's rights!), but it does make me glad that these characters who are less popular than Arcade and Veronica, partly because they're so much less immediately relatable, got such a genuinely appreciative push in those silly little polls. The discourse over Cass' sexuality only makes it more interesting, really, because then it's like "explicit gay representation" versus "has a weird gay thing going on," and where the tide is turning on what people are appreciating now.

Because there's something I've been noticing (especially in my own curated social circle but also larger out) where I feel like we're moving past and away from a fixation on representation as the ultimate metric of a media or artwork's value, or at least stances on this issue are becoming more polarized. I think of everyone around me watching Succession, The Sopranos, Columbo, Breaking Bad, Better Caul Saul, etc., basically just a lot of these shows that aren't really providing "representation" but are providing these incredibly deep, complex, and smart stories and characters that people can relate to and chew on in more ways than just sharing identities with the characters (especially since, for example, The Sopranos is VERY MUCH a show about gender and sexuality). Part of this is just because the state of representation-forward media is, like, paint-by-numbers YA novels made for BookTok first, cartoons made for literal children, agonizingly twee television shows, or mainstream movies too afraid to let their gay characters be more than two out of three of explicit, interesting, and authentic. For the really good shit you just have to find independent artists telling independent stories because the way media is made at a major and mainstream level, what kind of gay representation is allowed is still just really limited. Especially for queer representation, this has an overlap with how much explicit sexual content is allowed in media, because we are in a post-Everyone is Beautiful and No One is Horny world, and people are more wanting for fucking and sucking on screen, especially when your sexual identity is inseparable from who you want to fuck and/or suck.

This has gone waaaay off track from your original question, maybe. But to quote the prolific gay filmmaker Gregg Araki: “Just because a movie [or a book, or a TV show, or a character, etc.] is gay or independent doesn’t make it good. I’d rather go see fuckin’ Coneheads than go see most of them.”

#asks #anon #cass sweep

25 notes · View notes

asexual-means-no-attraction · 1 year

Note

I managed to stubble upon your blog and was going through it. You and I seem to hold a lot of similar viewpoints on LGBT+ stuff, but I was wondering your specific thoughts on both the Pansexual/Asexual Label. (As in do you believe in nuanced grey areas in Asexuality, for example like Demisexual as a label. Where there's no sexual attraction without a prior romantic relationship. And with the Pansexual label, which is one I prefer to use as an umbrella term under Bisexual mostly because I find it fits my own personal experiences better than the term Bisexuality does.)

I'm also curious about your thoughts on transgender people who don't experience gender dysphoria, but rather only experience gender euphoria when they transition. Mostly I'm curious if you consider yourself a transmedalist? And if so your thoughts on nonbinary individuals?

Here's a link to my FAQ with all those exact questions answered.

But as a quick (not so quick lol) summary:

-Demi isn't a sexuality. It's a description of how you experience attraction and your boundaries within a relationship. It's actually really normal to need time before you start feeling attraction to someone or ready to date, kiss, etc etc. If you really need a term to explain HOW you experience your attraction, don't act like it's a stand alone sexuality.

-the split attraction model has lots of problems. There's links in my FAQ. It's too many to list here. I don't like it.

-asexuality just means you aren't attracted to anyone. It's not good for labels to overlap as it leads to confusing and they start invalidating each other. Same train of thought for pansexual. It's invalidating and by most of it's definitions pretty shitty.

-bisexuality means you're attracted to everyone. That's it. Every definition of pansexual either treats trans people as a third gender, acts like gay, lesbian, and straight people only care about the act of sex, is literally just the definition of bisexual, or is just describing how they experience their attraction versus what the attraction actually is. More on that in the FAQ.

-gender euphoria is a symptom of general dysphoria. Many trans people first experience general euphoria because they are unaware of their dysphoria. If you've never worn glasses you might assume everyone has a hard time seeing details in trees and bricks. It's a normal experience. You don't know any other way of feeling or viewing the world. But once you have glasses you find a whole new world. When you experience euphoria it's like discovering a new side of yourself. It's like putting on glasses. You've always had bad vision, you just didn't realize it till you had glasses. You've always had gender dysphoria, you just didn't realize it until you experience a more obvious symptom such as euphoria. My dysphoria never specifically made me super depressed or suicidal (paired with other shit I had going on maybe. But not it alone). It's not some big bad thing to make you hate yourself. It's just the symptom of having the wrong gender. And how you experience it will be different for everyone.

-I do believe you need general dysphoria to be trans. You don't necessarily need to transition or come out as that's a personal choice that only the individual can make.

-i really desperately WANT to get along with the idea of nonbinary. But every single definition of it is always so sexist or transphobic it's really hard. I love the idea, but not the execution. More on that in the FAQ.

-as for your other ask, I don't care what you do. If you block me or respond is all up to you. I don't stop anyone from interacting unless their being obviously hateful or threatening in some way. I can't stop anyone from interacting anyways. Plus who knows, I might just chance someone else's mind (or they might mine). Either way, hope that helps. No hard feelings on what ever you decide. Good luck 🤞

#answered #ask #do you guys think my FAQ is good???#structure wise #does it need reorganizing #????

8 notes · View notes

imoga-pride · 9 months

Note

would it be alright to use gai and strayt if one is basically nonbinary but prefers to use genderqueer as a label? not sure if that's a generally ok thing to do or if it'd be better to find genderqueer-specific terms or make alternatives using the same definition but with "genderqueer" in place of "nonbinary". Asking because I found that terms through your blog btw

that would be fine for me (but I'm not the coiner). originally, it's defined as "feeling gay/straight in a nonbinary way". in my opinion, anyone can feel they're gay and/or straight "in a nonbinary way", that doesn't specify you're nonbinary. even binary people could feel that way, don't you agree?

many places you can find them being used as "nonbinary version of gay/straight". for example, there's a wiki using strayt as interchangeable synonym of enbyhet. I see there's an overlap between being a straight nonbinary person and being strayt. while some use them in identical ways, nonbinary/binaryn't people can feel their straight attraction in a binary way. or simply being "regular" hetero whose gender is nonbinary.

if a binary het or binary gay said to me they experience their gayness/straightness "in unconventional ways" and feel that strayt/gai resonate with them, I wouldn't worry about it.

but in lack of specific terms, there I would suggest coining something prefixed with neo- (like neopronouns, neoAGAB, neogender, neomale, neofeminine, neocis (neocisgender), etc.). for example, using "neogay", "neogai", "neogae", "neostraight", "neostrayt", "neohetero"/"neohet" would mean being a new type of gay/gai/gae or straight/strayt/het(ero). but that would only be useful if you prefer these instead of simply gai/strayt or gay/str8. quasi- is an alternative

genderqueer is often described as "noncisnormative" gender/identity. so if we use "nonbinary way" as the same thing as "noncisnormative way", that would allow you to be strayt/gai. but that's what I think and could be wrong. I'm just commenting and showing my perspectives/points of view.

also, if you think about "contradictory labels" (lesboy, turigirl, saphboy, mspec lesbian, lesbian trans man, etc), it depends on you if you are open to/accepting of these experiences.

2 notes · View notes

gingerswagfreckles · 3 years

Note

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.

100 notes · View notes

wolf-queer-discourse · 3 years

Text

Adventures in Aphobia #3

My last two Adventures in Aphobia both took on similar flavors of eye-rolling at shameless, obvious bigotry to anyone willing to look or care. But today, I found a different type of aphobia, and I’m actually eager to talk about this one. Have a read of this first.

Look, the bar of respect for ace people is so low it’s all the way in hell, but I mean, to many people, especially allosexual people, they may look at this post and think, “No, this isn’t aphobia. The poster wasn’t blatantly cruel.” But what some fail to realize is that politeness can be the thinnest of veils over the ugliest of takes. Polite bigotry gaslights the victims into thinking they can’t be upset about this.

So what’s the deal with this post?

PARAGRAPH #1 starts off innocently enough, saying ace discourse wouldn’t exist if people recognized complex relationships to sex and relationships. Even taken on its own, I do not agree with this. Ace discourse ranges all the way from outright denial of asexual existence to the strong hatred for and exclusion of aces from the queer community. Nearly everyone recognizes people have complex relationships to sex...that...that doesn’t mean ace people won’t be discriminated against. In fact, it’s an argument aphobes use constantly to try and gaslight ace people into erasing themselves. Ace discourse comes from a lot of places, but at the end of the day, it all stems from people’s refusal to acknowledge ace people and their unique experiences. This poster absolutely does not get to say “IT’s CoMpLicAteD”, and expect ace people to just disappear. Honestly, it’d be better and more honest if they said “Lol, ace people should go fuck themselves and hop to the back of the line with everyone else.”

PARAGRAPH #2 and #3 are not very objectionable on their own. Everything said is true. Society has very complicated views on sex, and life happens to all people. The ugly part of this is that the poster is setting up an argument here in which they will hand wave ace people into the “everyone else” crowd and pretend as if we’re all just too similar and no labels should even exist.

This is literally what enby-phobes do. They say “Well, gender is COMPLICATED”, which is true, but then they say “So like...aren’t we all really nonbinary when we think about it? Why should enby people label themselves?” I swear we’ve all seen this. The poster is agender. This argument could easily be whipped in their face. Different forms of bigotry can share very clear overlaps, and it’s very important to acknowledge where these arguments come from and why they exist. It exists as a way to shut people up. It happens to bi people too! Every day, people come out as bi and someone tells them “pff, everyone thinks girls are hot. I had a crush on my best friend once, that doesn’t mean I’m not straight! All people are like this!” Let’s call out this erasure where we see it. It’s not the same thing, and if anyone saying stuff like this truly believes what they’re saying, maybe they’re the ones who need to reevaluate their own identity.

PARAGRAPH #4 dips its ugly toes straight into blatant aphobia, having the gall to call ace and aro people “obsessed” with pretending their relationships with sex and romance are wholly unique and different. Nah, fuck right off with that bullshit. The poster even goes on to say ace people have created entire new social classes. Uh...WHAT? Is there some secret ace society with a caste system living in the shadows?? What is this person talking about?? I suppose you can’t be a true bigot unless you have some vague grievance to weakly hand-gesture at that you couldn’t prove given 20 years to do so. For the love of my sanity, just say you hate ace people! It’s okay! (I mean, not actually, but Jesus Christ does it save us all some time). They also say things like “somehow excluded from”. Replace asexual people with nonbinary people and take a joyride through this section, because the arguments are scarily similar. What would it take for this poster to acknowledge ace and aro people have their own experiences? Seriously, what? What holds you back from doing this?

It’s also funny to note the actual lack of substance to this argument. The poster is not giving any specific examples or even bringing up what being ace and aro mean. Yes, there is a pretty noticeable difference between feeling sexual attraction and not feeling sexual attraction. How many “allo” people do you know that say they’ve NEVER experienced this? Come on. The poster reduces asexuality and aromanticism down to allo people’s, in their own words, hyper-specific contexts where they don’t want sex or love. At least the poster admits any circumstance that allo people are comparable to ace people are extremely specific. But for real, are we hinging a whole argument on a few very specific examples of allo people having some similarity to ace people?

“Nothing about your relationship to sex or love makes you more or less LGBT. If you are gay and don’t want to have sex, ever, you are still gay. “

Mini strawman alert for the idea any ace person thinks you’re less gay if you’re also ace. And bonus points for an aphobe who refuses to use the definition of asexuality: not experiencing sexual attraction, and instead goes for “don’t want to have sex”. For the last. Fucking. Time. Not wanting to have sex and being asexual are NOT the same. Don’t make me pour gasoline in my eyes every time I see this.

After this, the poster goes on a tangent, which by the tone, seems to think it's very inspiring, and says no matter how you want to have sex (including only certain days of the week), you’re still straight! It’s so fucking condescending and gross to talk ace people out of their own identity like this.

“EVERY person who is heterosexual is different in how they perform or experience.”

Oh. My. GOD. THEY DIDN’T EVEN SAY STRAIGHT. THEY SAID HETEROSEXUAL. WUGGYUEGYUG. God help me. Can one be both bisexual and heterosexual? No…? Okay. So then. How is one both asexual AND heterosexual? What single brain cell in this poster’s head was responsible for this Chad of a sentence? I—

*deep breath*

So. It’s interesting how the poster says “perform or experience it”. Asexuality is an identity. It is not a performance, and it is not defined by your actions. A straight person not having sex does not become asexual. And sure...people with the same label can experience their sexuality differently, but...to a point, guys. You can’t experience your sexuality out of the DEFINITION of the label. Heterosexual: Sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Asexual: Sexual attraction to no one. If a “heterosexual” isn’t sexually attracted to anyone, they are by definition, not heterosexual. It takes insane mental gymnastics to make this argument, so A for flexibility, I guess?

“Gayness, straightness, and bisexuality are not defined by HOW you do or don’t want sex or HOW you do or don’t want to date, it’s just defined by WHO you want to be with.”

The first part of the sentence is correct, but it also defeats this person’s entire argument. Ace people AGREE with this. Being asexual is not the act of not having sex!! It’s not experiencing sexual attraction! You can google this! The second part of the sentence is mostly correct, depending on your interpretation. The issue is in part with the words the poster used: gayness, straightness and bisexuality. These words are not all equivalents. Gay could refer to sexual and or romantic orientation. Thus an ace gay person. Straightness is not actually an equal word to gayness. This is because straight is an exclusive term for a normative sexuality (in society’s eyes) in terms of sexual and romantic attraction. Some ace people DO call themselves straight, though it’s inaccurate. Ace people can be heteroromantic, but because being straight is so exclusive, you need to be both sexually AND romantically attracted to only the opposite gender.

The post basically ends telling ace people they’re all actually straight and were just confused the whole time. Lovely. And an erasure of gay aces too! Believe it or not, gay ace people do not like having their ace identities erased. Who’d have guessed?

Honestly, if anything this post is just kind of sad. A sad reflection of what people believe and how they truly do not see their own bigotry. They believe they’re freeing ace people from an incorrect label. They’re the heroes.

They’ll say “it’s okay, you’re not asexual” as if they've like...lifted a burden off of ace people. Like, “Oh, you think I’m not asexual? Cool, cool. Glad you cleared that up for me!” It’s sad how aphobes think, some very genuinely, that asexuality is just some high school party that went off the rails, and we’re all just coming out of the drunken haze, ready to go home. Ready to all laugh about it later, tease one another about how wild and silly it all was.

Having your identity erased like this is fucking horrible, and I hope people like this can take a look in the mirror and see themselves clearly. All ace and aro people have a right to their identity, whether gay, bi, heteroromantic or anything else. End of story.

#discourse #queer discourse #LGBT discourse #Adventures in Aphobia #ace discourse #asexual discourse #aphobia #ace #ace discrimination #asexual #asexuality #aromantic #aro #LGBT #queer #rant #why does this post think it's so intellegent #why did this post try so hard to sound nice at first #it's still aphobia

34 notes · View notes

baya-ni · 3 years

Text

SHADOW’s Queer Coding

I first started exploring this idea of Sk8′s implicit queer rep (as in stuff other than explicit same sex intimacy) in this post.

I know we like to joke that Hiromi is the Token Straight of the protag gang, but I argue that he’s as much an example of queer rep as any of our main characters, albeit in a less conventional and fanservicey way.

So that’s what this post is gonna be, an analysis of Hiromi/SHADOW as a queer figure, how his character fits the Jekyll/Hyde archetype as a metaphor for queerness and The Closet, the similarities between SHADOW as a skatesona and early drag, and how his character represents a larger problem of exclusion within queer fandom spaces.

The 1886 Gothic novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson is the origin of the phrase “Jekyll and Hyde”. What I’m calling the Jekyll/Hyde archetype, refers to the same thing; it refers to duality, to a character who is “outwardly good but sometimes shockingly evil” (as described from the novella’s wiki page).

And the Jekyll/Hyde dynamic has also long been associated with Queerness. The antagonism between Jekyll and Hyde as two sides of the same person resonates with many people as similar to the experience being in the closet, and many many scholars have written about this queer reading of Jekyll and Hyde. Do a quick google search if you don’t believe me.

Hiromi experiences his own Jekyll/Hyde duality through his SHADOW persona, which seems to entirely contradict with Hiromi’s day to day personality.

Whilst Hiromi is sweet, romantic, and generally very cutesy, SHADOW is mean-spirited, sadistic, described as “the anti-hero of the S community.” And though these two personalities seem entirely at odds, SHADOW doesn’t exist in a vacuum, he’s very much a part of Hiromi. In the show, this manifests as SHADOW’s sabotage moves being all flower themed, as Hiromi works in a flower shop, and how he’ll “step out” of character when playing babysitter to the kids.

Below is passage from an essay titled, “The Homoerotic Architectures of Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” which reminds me a lot of Hiromi’s character, such that I think his character arc can be read as an allegory for coming out and self acceptance.

The closet, here, is a space not only for secrecy and repression, but also for becoming; it is the space in which queer identities build themselves up from “disused pieces” and attempt to discover the strength needed for presentation to the world. The closet is both a space of profound fear and profound courage—of potentiality and actualization. (Prologue)

Unlike the kid/teen characters, the show’s adult characters all lead double lives. When they aren’t skating, they have day jobs. Kaoru is a calligrapher, Kojiro is a restaurant owner, Ainosuke is a politician/businessman (but tbh his job is just being some rich dude), and Hiromi works in a flower shop.

But of the adult protagonists (so not Ainosuke), Hiromi compartmentalizes the most.

Kojiro leaves his face totally exposed such that he can be recognized both on and off the skate scene. Kaoru at least covers his face, but his trademark pink hair and constant use of Carla doesn’t make it very hard to connect the dots between him and CHERRY. He’s also always with Kojiro in the evenings, so if you don’t recognize him as CHERRY when he’s on his own, you certainly will when you see him interacting with Kojiro/JOE.

Next to these two, Hiromi seems the more adamant at separating his Work from Play.

Even when he’s been clearly found it, he still tries to deny that he and SHADOW are the same person. Miya even uses this to coerce Hiromi into helping him and the boys:

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the separation between Hiromi and SHADOW can be interpreted as a metaphor for being in The Closet. As SHADOW, he leads a secret life, one characterized by an tight-knit underground community with a vibrant night scene, where he behaves in ways typically frowned upon by larger society. He worries about being found out and judged by the people close to him.

But in Ep 4, the walls of his Closet begins to come down, or in this case is literally imposed upon by other members of his community, by its younger members, who don’t feel the same need to hide their passion for skateboarding or lead the same kind of double life.

We then see the line between Hiromi and SHADOW begin to blur.

He becomes less of an antagonist, and instead the audience sees him become a mentor and “mother hen” figure for the younger skaters. Later on in Ep 4, we see him casually interacting with the other protags in full SHADOW mode, not as an “anti-hero” but as a friend. In Ep 6, he acts as a babysitter for the kids, and we see him totally comfortable appearing both in an out of his SHADOW persona throughout their vacation.

And I think that this gradual convergence of Hiromi and SHADOW will culminate in this tournament arc.

There’s something more personal that’s driving SHADOW to do well in this tournament. It’s not just for bragging rights or his pride as a skater, but the results of this tournament is going to have some kind of greater impact on Hiromi’s personal life. Personally, my theory is that Hiromi is using this tournament to prove to himself that he’s worthy enough to ask his manager out on a date.

Hiromi is no longer compartmentalizing, his two lives are overlapping and influencing each other. Recall the essay quote I cited earlier:

The closet... is the space in which queer identities build themselves up from “disused pieces” and attempt to discover the strength needed for presentation to the world... of potentiality and actualization.

This is exactly the case for Hiromi. Through skating, he is piecing together the disparate parts of him such that he can present himself to the world as a more unified and confident being.

And the show presents the very skating community that Hiromi has been working so hard to keep separated from his personal life- Reki, Langa, Miya, Kaoru, and Kojiro- as the catalyst for that becoming.

That, my dear readers, is queer coding if I ever saw it.

But there’s probably gonna be people claiming something along the lines of “But SHADOW can’t be queer rep because he’s Straight!” And I assume that’s because he shows romantic interest in his female manager.

First of all, Bisexuality. Also Ace/aro-spec people. And second of all, SHADOW is Hiromi’s drag persona.

And before anyone can say anything about how Hiromi can’t do drag because he’s straight (assumption) and cis (also an assumption) uhhhh no, fuck you.

Drag didn’t start with RuPaul’s Drag Race, that’s just how it got mainstream. And it’s also how it got so gentrified and transphobic. You heard me. But anyway.

Drag is, and has always been, first and foremost about exaggerated, and oftentimes satirical, gender presentation and performance. It’s about playing with gender norms through artistic dress and theater, not so much to do with sexuality or gender identity.

Literally, what’s the difference here?

SHADOW is a persona of exaggerated masculinity with a punk aesthetic. Regardless of his sexuality or gender identity, Hiromi’s gender performance as SHADOW is drag- that makes him queer representation, change my fucking mind.

Queerness is more than same-sex romance, and by extension, good queer representation is not limited to canonized gay ships. The very word Queer, in it’s ambiguity, is meant to encompass the richly unique experiences of everyone within the LGBTQ+ community.

In my opinion, Queer =/= Gay. I mean, they’re colloquially the same yes and even I use them interchangeably. But for the purpose of this post, they’re not the same, and that’s to argue that Hiromi/SHADOW’s lack of acknowledgement as queer rep illustrates a larger issue of exclusion within fandom.

I mean, this is something we all kinda been knew, but in the case of Sk8 specifically, there are a two main reasons why I think Hiromi is rarely acknowledged as queer rep.

1. He’s not shippable with another male character

Fandom favors mlm ships when it comes to what’s considered good queer rep. And the ultimate mark of good queer rep is explicit acts of romance or intimacy between two male characters. Unlike with any of the other characters in the show, we can’t point to Hiromi and automatically clock him as gay, especially because he expresses romantic interest in a woman.

So by default, he’s less popular, because “Ew Straight People” amirite /s.

2. He’s not attractive

This is really interesting, because like JOE, Hiromi is a beefcake.

But fans don’t thirst over him the same way they do over JOE. Granted, the show really plays up JOE’s muscles in a very strip-teasey way that literally encourages viewers to find him attractive. By contrast, Hiromi is pretty much covered head to toe and he paints his face in theatrical makeup- the point is to look scary, not attractive.

In essence, even though Hiromi engages in “queer behavior” through his SHADOW persona, his queerness isn’t palatable.

But I also think there’s some pretty insidious undercurrents of fetishization going on here, of both Asian people AND gay men. Which is... a whole other thing I really don’t have the capacity to unpack completely.

But basically, Hiromi doesn’t fit into any of the popular BL archetypes so he’s less likely to recognized as Queer. Relatedly, he’s also less often subjected to a fetishistic gaze as other characters. I mean...

So again, fans just don’t find him as appealing. Attractive characters are always more popular than ugly ones.

And I’m sure there are a lot of people who just don’t care for Hiromi’s personality, that’s fine, he does act like an asshole sometimes. But this post is meant to illustrate that queer rep takes multiple forms, and unfortunately I think a lot of media just tends to fall back on stereotypical portrayals of queer people for the sake of broader appeal. And by consequence, the fandom’s idea of what constitutes queer rep narrows to same-sex romance, usually between two cis gay men.

With the release of Ep 9, I know a lot of people queer people are going to find representation in the Kojiro’s whole “unrequited love” thing. But personally, I feel more represented by Hiromi, his journey of self-acceptance and subversive relationship with gender- that’s what resonates with me as a trans person.

And I think it’s important to see that kind of less palatable type of queer representation more acknowledged in fandom, and in Sk8′s fandom especially, because I know the demographics of this fandom lean heavily queer.

But that’s all for now, lemme know what you guys think :)

#if there are typos forgive me i'm tired #i've been sitting on this take for a number of weeks now #i rlly hope i'm big braining rn #and not just like #yelling into a void #i love hiromi #yall Sleeping on my mans #hav u seen his leather clad ass???#bodacious #sk8 #sk8 the infinity #sk8 theory #sk8 meta #sk8 spoilers #sk8 shadow

185 notes · View notes

mafaldaknows · 3 years

Note

This might be controversial, and probably Timmy himself would prefer people to focus on his acting, though I feel like he obviously loves the fashion too. But I don't think that having more engagement in the latter is a bad thing, necessarily?

I don't agree with the way his team is selling his image, but he can be a fashion icon AND the greatest actor of his generation at the same time. The audience for both doesn't have to overlap. Ideally it would, but it doesn't have to. I personally don't really intend to watch Dune; even if I might change my mind later. Actually, his only other project than CMBYN I'm interested to watch rn is TFD. Doesn't mean I don't want him to do well with his other projects. The side of his audience that loves the acting will likely grow with Dune, the side that loves the fashion will grow during the promo activities. And honestly, more power to him? As I said, I think he wants both. Fashion is not a lesser art than cinema

I even think the handling of his image *cough*theshamming*cough* is less the result of trying to appeal to the portion of his fans that mostly cares about the fashion, and more the result of trying to appeal to the people in power who can get him cast in big movies and get him accolades for his roles. Because honestly it's those people in power that are conservative and out of touch. The people who love the fashion might be composed of fangirls who dream of dating him, but they're mostly from a demographic that's more and more open to diversity, and ultimately won't care whether or not he's straight (or gay, or bi, or ace, or something else)

(all this to say that imo, the bigger engagement for his looks and his PR choices are not part of the same problem, mostly because the former is not actually a problem)

Hello Anon,

I’m all for engagement for Timmy as a fashion plate. That’s part of his art.

I don’t disagree with you, Anon, and as a costumer, I’d be lying if I said that his personal style wasn’t a big part of his magnetic persona, as well as one of the reasons for his meteoric rise in the entertainment industry. What I object to is what appears to be a conscious decision to promote the shallower aspects of his celebrity, the necessity to link him to a wannabe starlet, for example, in order to gain legitimacy as a true movie star in the eyes of global movie goers, obviously by the powers that be, who seem to use an outdated 20th-century template to reach his 21st-century fans. He’s so much more than pretty tabloid fodder, and his fans are also far more sophisticated and intelligent than his handlers seem to think, imho.

I just wish his PR team would shift a bit more of their focus back to the interesting projects he choses to do, and less on how pretty he is or who he is dating. That’s all.

Thanks for your comment. 😊💗

#hello anon #public relations #timothée chalamet #any publicity is good publicity #tales from the charmiesphere

35 notes · View notes

bigskydreaming · 3 years

Note

Dick is *biromantic demisexual. (Not going to let them turn him into a thot for a whole other gender just because just about every writer since Dixon has liked the idea of him screwing everything on two legs. Kyle Higgins is good boy though. Grant Morrison would be good child if not for other things.)

I will always do my best to respect other peoples' headcanons about characters' sexualities and gender, but I would appreciate the same in return. I'm aware of why many people headcanon Dick as biromantic demisexual, but the specific lines Dick has said about his views on sex and love and needing to have feelings for someone before he has sex with them, like in those specific iterations, the way those lines are said? They are not mutually exclusive with non-demi interpretations of bisexuality because plenty of bisexual people who ID specifically as bisexual, are only comfortable having sex with people they have feelings for. And yes, I'm familiar with the nuances of demisexuality as described to me by many people who identify as such, but singular lines like the ones we're referring to Dick having said? Can apply to more than one orientation or sexuality. There's sizable overlap in play here.

There is also the fact that many people change their views or approach to love and sex and relationships at MULTIPLE points throughout their lives, for a variety of reasons. (Such as many rape survivors, for instance, going through periods of hyper-sexuality in the aftermath of their assault as part of attempts to find a new footing or new normal once their previous self-perception and how they interact with romance and sexuality had undergone serious upheaval).

These are complicated and personal topics, and its one thing to ask people to respect an example of representation AS IS, even if it butts up against their own personal wishes for representation for how they specifically identify. As an example.....I'm a lifelong Bobby Drake fan. I've always identified heavily with him and projected on him, and as such, I headcanoned him as bisexual like myself for a good fifteen years or so before he was officially identified as gay in canon. Even though I had years and years of perceiving Bobby as bi, due to stories that did not contradict or invalidate that perception of him while still allowing for him to explore same gender attraction.....once he was officially established as gay, and not bi, my personal desire to see him as bi or previously perceiving him as bi does not justify attempting to speak over the fact that he was officially made representation for an identity that has a great deal of OVERLAP with my own, but is not specifically the same as I ID as.

Now, jokes about not taking DC’s verdict on things aside (and that was a mistake to be flippant about because yeah, I do actually think its important to acknowledge OFFICIAL representation on face value, and the joke I made was more about just not accepting the idea of characters being straight - because straightness, with the exception of trans straight inviduals, is not a marginalization and thus it needs no representation and doesn’t suffer an actual LOSS of representation by people not viewing the characters as straight, so I am interested in taking this time to clarify my view on that and I’ll be less flippant about that in the future)....

Point being, if Dick is written canonically LABELING himself biromantic demisexual, I am more than willing to shift my language and depictions of him accordingly. But he has not done so, and authoritatively declaring that the things pointed to as proof of that identity - but which have sizable overlap with many bisexual individuals' views of their own sexualities - does not actually MAKE him the former rather than the latter, at least not in such a way as to justify people speaking over each other in their desire to see their personal marginalization or self-image thereof, like, affirmed and validated through this character we both happen to identify strongly with.

So I'm never going to tell you that you're wrong for perceiving Dick as biromantic demisexual, or that I'm right and he's definitively bisexual, I'm simply saying my post only expressed that I've always headcanoned Dick as bisexual, and as such, I'm not remotely thrilled with this response in my inbox. I don't have the right to invalidate your view of Dick's sexuality because my own differs. The same is true of you, however.

And frankly, there's a lot about this ask that I don't love, implications wise, and I'm not all that interested in parsing it down to see where this just got off on the wrong foot with me and thus I'm reading more biphobia into it than is actually there or if like, the implications I'm reading here as to how you view bisexuality are actually there.

So instead I'll just say please read back your own ask, and with all of the above in mind, consider why this was not the best way to add follow up to a bisexual guy simply posting that he's always viewed Dick as bisexual, and what exactly about this rubbed the wrong way and sparked irritation.

20 notes · View notes

illnessfaker · 3 years

Note

i apologize for the ask wording. it was not meant to be bait. i was genuinely confused on where to stand on that. thank you for the reply(?) of misogyny impacting everyone.

ok in that case the thing is the question is an oversimplification of a complex issue, at least imo. it also depends on what you mean by "impacted" because that can look like different things to different people and i think questions like this come from a very binary understanding of gendered oppression. idk if i can fully explain my thoughts on this because it's not something i see often discussed but i'll try my best lol.

like, the thing is, (trans)misogyny / homophobia / transphobia / etc. all are means of enforcing the gendered status-quo and therefore share a lot of "logic" and mechanisms in society. most of it, if not all of it, falls back on "women/men can't/shouldn't/should do [x]." women are supposed to marry men and have kids with them. women are supposed to wear feminine clothing and makeup. women are supposed to be free of body hair, etc. men are supposed to marry women and have kids with them. men are supposed to be sexually dominant. men are supposed to wear masculine clothing and otherwise be "outwardly" manly, etc. "man" and "woman" are the only experiences one is supposed to have. anything else is considered punishable gender-transgression, which is something inherent to gayness and transness. so everything falls back on "breaking a gender rule," and most of those "gender rules" revolve around the subjugation of women by men (although it's not always that clear cut in practice - i think there's more "locations" under gender than just those two that contradict that notion depending on a lot of factors).

so, for example, effeminate men get targeted for their gender presentation. this targeting is arguably misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, transmisogynistic (based on the underlying gender beliefs that drive it- not saying that effeminate men are TMA) all at once, depending on how you look at it. femininity is seen a marker of a submissive gendered role under patriarchy / is "degrading" on a man, which is misogynistic logic. effeminacy is also associated with gayness, which is homophobic logic. trans women are often targeted with the logic of "men shouldn't be feminine" (although trans women as a group aren't really socially regarded as "men" the same way t*rfs call trans women "men" but treat actual men with much more dignity and respect), which is transmisogyny. trans men might feel pressured into hyper-masculinity by anti-effeminacy, which is transphobia.

but these things are usually (and usually correctly) depending on context - if it's an effeminate cishet man it would probably be called anti-effeminacy. if it's an effeminate cis gay man it would probably be called anti-effeminacy and/or homophobia. if it's an effeminate straight trans man it would probably be called anti-effeminacy and/or transphobia. if it's an effeminate gay trans man it would probably be called anti-effeminacy, transphobia, and/or homophobia. a cishet woman being socially punished for having body hair is misogyny but a butch woman being socially punished for having body hair is both misogyny and lesbophobia/homophobia (and if she's trans then transmisogynistic as well).

and the root of it all, what is being reinforced, are these "rules" of gender where "men/women can't do [x]." gender roles. gendered violence. gendered oppression. however you wanna call it. i guess a simpler way to put it would be "this is all gendered violence with different names depending on what group(s) it affects." terves and other groups will sometimes argue that transphobia is "just misogyny" but they're missing the point that (trans)misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, etc. is actually "just gender."

okay...idk if what i just typed made any goddamn sense whatsoever but there it is. so, i guess to answer your question, "do trans men and trans women both face misogyny before transition?" the answer is technically yes, but i don't think it's a very useful way of looking at the complexities of how gender functions and the complexities of how it's enacted against trans people (both before and after any kind of transition, which some trans people won't do that at all) outside of maybe recognizing that some trans men need access to traditionally "women's" resources regardless of transition status and trans women shouldn't be barred from those resources on the basis of assigned sex / assumed gender experience / transition status (which is why i think it's more useful to understand gendered oppression not as "men oppressing women" but as something like "people who wield gendered violence vs. people targeted by it" which can change depending on context and also overlap.)

#asks #Anonymous #gender #misogyny

17 notes · View notes

ouyangzizhensdad · 3 years

Note

unpopular opinion: most of the mxtx critical discourse happens becouse people cant let go of their prejudes against bl genre

Somewhat agree? I know you used “most” so you already acknowledged that there are other factors at play, but I do think it’s important to consider that reactions like these generally do not have a single, easy answer.

While people tend to conflate danmei and BL, we can’t ignore that there have been larger discussions about how women *should* or *should not* engage or produce m/m content, in and out of fandoms, in ways that even people who haven’t drunk the anti-fujo kool-aid are inherently suspicious of “straight women” writing m/m stories (the Love, Simon controversy is an example of that where the author was forced out of the closet for the crime of writing a m/m story as a presumed straight woman). But danmei/bl being non-western, non-white genres certainly accentuate many of these tensions. Racism funnily both play into the patronising/otherising takes regarding how ‘terrible’ danmei-bl is compared to other m/m content, but also in the criticisms of westerners who engage in danmei-bl: ‘so you guys just want to fetishise asian men/asian gay men’.

As well, there’s been so much discussions about what *should* or *should not* been written when it comes more broadly to romance and sex, about what is problématique or not, the conclusion of which seems to lean toward the idea that any content that is not a safe, sane and consensual PSA or entirely wholesome simply should not exist. And that’s not even mentioning the sort of “psychologisation” or “trauma-turn” of these discussions, where people assume the psychological states of people who write or engage with problématique content, or propose that only people who have the right list of traumas can produce or engage with these types of content. And that hangs heavy not only in the mind of people who produce content but the person who consume it. If the only reason you could possibly want to engage with anything problématique would be that you are, in a way, deviant or broken, then perhaps you will start consciously avoiding these types of works or people who produce them. And all these relate to large discussions about how “””fiction impacts reality””” and discussions about social justice and consent, etc. etc. Once more, we have overlapping discourses and so, so much intertextuality.

And the thing is that, generally, it’s not like these discourses are “rotten to the core,” ie that there is not important conversations to be had about these topics or that real issues did not spark these conversations in the first place. However, many people tend to want to collapse these complex discussions with complex and sometimes contradicting conclusions into a single, convenient answer by going to the extreme. And we have to recognise that there is something rewarding about feeling like you’re in the right, especially when these discourses become moralised. The trade-off between giving up entirely on something for the reward of taking the moral high ground seems very appealing! And it’s a lot less difficult than to navigate on a case-by-case basis works of fiction or fandom discussions, or to figure how to like something you might also disagree with or question regarding certain aspects.

However, not only is it a vain effort, it is also denies art its capacity for meaning. It is vain because, well, the sources of the issues are unlikely to disappear and will probably only move onto a newer manifestation, and because humans be problematic 🤷‍♂️ and we be living in a society 🤷‍♂️. It doesn’t mean we should not be critical and have debates and conversations and expect better--but it means that this belief that the internet will be a good place if only we can squash fandom group X is just..... a fantasy. A comforting one, perhaps, but one all the same. I wouldn’t mind it as much if there wasn’t harassment and aggression resulting from these beliefs, and if it didn’t stifle art and creativity, the latter relating to an underlying assumption that there is nothing of worth in exploring in fiction difficult or shocking themes, or relationship dynamics that are not perfect or healthy. And that is just..... fundamentally misunderstanding the point of art and fiction.

As well, somewhat in relation to these discussions, it’s important I think to accept that a lot of people who engage with MDZS in bad faith do so after they have been exposed by takes demonising the work that they took at face-value. It takes a lot more energy, good faith, critical thinking, and good reading comprehension to end up finding arguments against a perception of a work that you already accepted as true before you read it. Especially since social media has made it so much more dependent on other people’s opinions to decide what we engage with, and in which manner we will, I don’t think it can be understated. If you have already been served an opinion, it is easier than having to form your own, and easier than challenging it. Especially if people frame that opinion as morally right, and the people who disagree with it as degenerate sickos. Wouldn’t want to side with the freaks!!!

Finally, MDZS is not a work of fiction that can be read on the surface, and is a work that likes to play with tropes in a manner than is not necessarily a complete and total subversion, things that make it easier for people to miss the point of many of its elements. It’s even harder considering the level of the available translation and the framing of said translation--and the fact that many of the readers are not part of the intended audience and lack many of the cultural or literary knowledge that would help them navigate the novel. And, let’s be honest, it’s easier to miss the mark at times when a writer decides to handle more complex and controversial topics. It’s not like I don’t think MXTX could have not done some things better.

22 notes · View notes

porcupine-girl · 4 years

Text

Untamed Fic Rec List

Look, most of these are reasonably popular fics already, so if you’ve been in this fandom for a couple months you’ve likely read them. Which is not how I normally do rec lists, but I’m new enough to Untamed that I’m still reading through all the fics by authors I know from other fandoms plus ones that have been personally recced to me, so I haven’t made it into the deep dive of underappreciated fics that I normally like to rec.

It doesn’t help that one of these recs is 445K, so for like two weeks straight it was basically all I was reading.

BUT if, like me, you are rather new to this fandom and its fics, here are some good ones:

The Same Moon Shines Series by sami

This is the 445K behemoth, made up of 23 works, and is technically made up of three interrelated series. The first fic, which establishes the whole universe/multiverse, is 139K on its own. Basically, decades into the canon future, WWX invents time travel.

He goes back to being born, but is reborn with all his memories intact. And he fixes, like, fucking everything and it’s so, so fucking satisfying. Everything’s not perfect though - for example, he like lowkey (highkey?) traumatizes LXC by showing him his previous life via empathy and that has some consequences eventually. Featuring ace poly JC/LXC/WQ triad.

Then in a cracky subseries, appropriately called “ridiculous future bullshit”, we assume that the main six from this universe (WWX, LWJ, JC, WQ, LXC, JYL, & Lan Sizhui) all achieve immortality and find out what they’re up to in the modern day, where they’re revered in the Five Nations (this does a great job of staying in the canon world instead of ours) but of course white Western assholes do things like try and make a disney movie called Hanguang-Jun and the Yiling Patriarch where they marry LWJ off to a girl.

And then in a third subseries, which so far has only one WIP fic, we go back to the canon universe, find out that JC and LWJ were stuck there watching WWX disappear in his time machine array (so WWX actually split off into another universe, he didn’t rewind his own), and so they get into the array having no idea what it will do but wanting to chase down the asshole they love. And so a third universe is born, where they are both born with their memories but WWX is not. I absolutely love seeing how different their priorities are from WWX’s in terms of what they want to change in their new life.

(Also: This is technically a MDZS fic that usually goes with novel canon over show canon if there’s a discrepancy, so if like me you haven’t read the whole novel you might need to look up some plot points now and then.)

The Vermillion Ribbon by @unforth

AU where Wei WuXian was taken in by Wen Qing and Wen Ning’s parents instead of the Jiangs. LWJ (who is the POV character) is a super DUPER dick to him at first, like even moreso than in canon, but the speed with which he regrets his choices is breathtaking and extremely satisfying.

LWJ is a VERY unreliable narrator. He has absolutely no idea what is going on with himself or anyone else at any point in time. Eventually he at least becomes self-aware of this fact, and can at least go wait am I missing something? I think I’m missing several somethings but fuck if I know what. Wei WuXian not understanding this about him leads to some miscommunication, because WWX doesn’t get that LWJ needs absolutely everything spelled out to him in single-syllable words with crayon drawings and y’know, WWX isn’t going to be straightforward anytime he can pretend he’s TOTALLY FINE :D :D :D instead.

LWJ’s friendship with NHS is magical, and NHS in general gets 810% more opportunity to scheme and plot pre-time-of-NMJ’s-canonical-death than in canon and is honestly living his best life. It’s also valuable for LWJ to have a scheming friend because, aside from realizing he misjudged WWX, this is how he starts to figure out that he’s a dumbass who has no idea what is going on ever. But he can count on NHS to always be ten steps ahead, so it’s okay.

(ETA: I’m sorry, I made unforth feel like maybe LWJ was too dense, and no, he’s very much not stupid in general. Like, honestly the fact that he becomes so self-aware of the things he’s bad at, and does things like trust NHS to always understand the stuff he’s missing, makes him come off as very intelligent. It’s just in the specific realm of understanding anything that people say or do that isn’t 100% honest and straightforward that he is just entirely hopeless in a rather relatable way, and like I said, WWX’s go-to is hiding any and all pain so that is a bad combo.)

The Fire Lapping Up the Creek by notevenyou

This diverges from canon when WWX is on his way to Jin Ling’s one month celebration, but doesn’t bring Wen Ning along. So when Jin Zixun attacks it goes very poorly for him, poorly enough that Jin Zixuan thinks he’s dead and it’s reported back at Carp Tower as such. Sending LWJ into a dissociative state. He manages to break through to reality just long enough to find out that Jin Zixuan took WWX’s body back to the burial mounds and left it with Wen Qing, and to get on his sword and go directly there. Thankfully, it turns out that WWX is not dead, but only just barely so.

So LWJ stays there, because now that he spent some amount of time (he isn’t really sure if it was like five minutes or two hours, because dissociation) thinking WWX was dead he now knows that he should never, ever be anywhere but with WWX.

Honestly, it almost feels like a spoiler to say WWX doesn’t die, but there’s no major character death warning while there IS one for graphic violence so it’s not a chose not to warn either, so that’s technically not a spoiler. But things are touch-and-go for him for a very, very long time. And the romance is a slow burn with pining galore. And you get to see LWJ teaching A-Yuan to play the guqin, so like imagine being WWX and you wake up from almost dying to see that going on in your cave.

Velle: to will, to wish by @aerlalaith

This one is actually canon-compliant, and as it’s both quite a bit shorter and more straightforward, plot-wise, than the others, my writeup will be short but that doesn’t mean I loved it any less. Basically, it’s the process of LWJ deciding to adopt A-Yuan in the aftermath of WWX’s death. It starts just after he’s been beaten for turning against the other cultivators, and at first it’s mostly his grief and both physical and emotional pain. A-Yuan starts slipping in to visit him. and LWJ isn’t sure if he’s really okay with that at first.

Of course he becomes very okay with it, but the Lan elders and Lan Qiren and all aren’t just going to be like “ok sure you can barely walk you should def adopt a four-year-old of unclear origins who may or may not have something to do with your demonic dead boyfriend and the evil people he helped, that’s cool,” so it’s not that simple.

There’s a followup fic where, years later, LWJ chooses the courtesy name Sizhui and Xichen gives him shit for it.

save a sword, ride a socialist by sysrae / @fozmeadows

Continuing on my grand tour of Untamed fics by my fave writers from other fandoms, I get to enjoy having overlapped with foz on a third straight fandom which is just fabulous. I totally thought I wasn’t gonna read AUs and then this asshole comes along and writes AUs, which is not playing fair.

I especially love this because it’s modern day but much like ridiculous future bullshit it’s modern day in (more or less) a canonish world, not our world. So like, they fly on swords, but not long distances because it’s easier to take a train or drive rather than use up all that spiritual energy.

Lan Qiren and Jin Guangshan miss the old ways, though, and they think the best ancient tradition to bring back is arranged marriage! Because that will go over well with today’s youth. They try to make LWJ marry Mianmian but he’s like “um I’m gay” and LQ throws a hissy fit about that so Jin Zixuan (who is LWJ’s bestie and is fucking hilarious) hatches a plot for LWJ to cause LQ to stroke out by bringing WWX to Lan Xichen’s birthday party as his fake date.

But when LWJ and WWX meet up to talk this over, LWJ is instantly fucked because WWX has a small child with him and it turns out that this small child is the orphan he adopted. He doesn’t notice he’s fucked until a few days later, though, when WWX comes over for “kissing practice” and they fuck and he calls Jin Zixuan all “I think I caught a feel, what do?” and JZX is like idk, you’re a moron, don’t ask me to clean up your moron messes. And the next day LWJ buys a car seat.

Lan Wangji heard about Jack 110% Zimmermann and said “challenge accepted,” is what I’m saying here. And now I’ve written as much about this 33k fic as I did about the 445k, so I’ll shut up before I just recount the entire plot.

#the untamed #fic recs #wangxian #if I haven't recced your fic I probably haven't read it yet #literally this is most of the fics I've managed to read so far #when I say the same moon shines took up all of my reading time for 2-3 weeks I am being entirely serious #and then vermillion ribbon is 220+k so it took a week or two too #so like i've got ao3 emails waiting in my inbox for fics by tippy and moosefeels and through_shadows_falling and a few others #I promise I will get to them!

50 notes · View notes

rotationalsymmetry · 3 years

Text

Reading through a argument around “is queer a self defined thing or is it something where you have to check off at least one specific named identity and tell people what that is thing?” And there’s a 17 year old who expressed concerns about the idea of queer being a self identifier thing getting his ass handed to him. Which, I have to say, my initial reaction (safely saved to drafts) also involved a lot of swear words, and not colorful background swearwords either.

Fuck off. My initial reaction was to tell him to fuck off. And that, never mind about hypothetical straight fakers, I didn’t want him at my queer events.

But...I can understand, being young, probably being new to the community, possibly not having any offline community at all, how someone might find themselves arguing that position.

I mean, we got a lot of gatekeeping of various types on this site and in online queer spaces in general. It’s a thing someone could pick up without really questioning it, just because other queer people are saying it. And, you’re new, you’re unsure of yourself, you want to fit in. I can see it.

So, the kind gentle explanation, for anyone who needs less fuck off and more patiently explaining. (If I get replies/asks about this I’ll attempt to continue with the patient version.)

The acronym isn’t fixed. It’s fluid, and the categories within it are fluid.

For example: Marsha P Johnson in her life didn’t call herself a transgender woman. She called herself a transvestite and a gay man, even though she used she/her pronouns. Now, we look back on that and think “well, the language changed over time, someone who lived the way she did would almost certainly call herself a trans woman now, and the modern queers who identify with her most tend to be trans women.” Categories are fluid, in that now we’re inclined to see “trans woman, cross dresser, gay man” as entirely separate categories that aren’t especially related to each other (and het crossdressers might not be seen as queer at all) but they used to have much more overlap.

As another example, “non-binary” wasn’t really a thing when I hit adulthood. There were people who would now call themselves nonbinary, but they used different terms, like genderqueer. Stone Butch Blues talks about “he-she’s”, a term that straddled “butch lesbian” and the modern “transmasculine”, and which definitely isn’t in common use any more.

And that’s just in recent American history! If you look at how queerness is conceptualized across time and across cultures, it varies so much. Some cultures have more than two genders that are universally recognized within that culture. Some times/cultures see homosexuality as being dependent on whether you’re topping or bottoming or about gender roles: a guy who bottoms or takes on feminine gender roles is gay, while one who tops is just a normal straight guy. Sometimes a culture has fairly set gender roles, but people who are biologically male or female taking on the opposite role and having a same-sex partner is completely normal and unremarkable.

The alternative to “a queer person is someone who says they are queer” is to have a fixed definition. You are queer if you check at least one: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, (asexual, intersex, two spirit, whatever else we want to explicitly include on the list.) But that would require “queer” to have a fixed definition and for all the sub-types of queer to be fixed.

What about when people don’t know for sure: a woman who knows she’s lesbian or bisexual but not which, a person who might be trans but isn’t quite sure, someone who might be asexual but again isn’t quite sure, but perhaps is quite sure they don’t feel comfortable when straight people talk about sex and romance. (And then there’s what happens when you’ve always thought of yourself as gay, but your partner is transitioning so what does that make you?) Hanging out in queer spaces with people who are queer makes sense for all of those people, even ones who might eventually decide they’re not actually queer after all.

And I’ve been writing paragraphs and paragraphs, but I think I missed the main point, which is: the alternative to “queer is self-defined” is “someone else gets to tell you whether you’re queer or not.” Which gives strangers permission to ask all sorts of invasive questions. (Especially if the given reason for defining queer is to keep people who aren’t queer out of queer spaces! That can only happen if you actually ask people coming into a space what they are!) There’s no way to define queer other than “someone who says they’re queer” or “someone who thinks they fit in with other queer people” that doesn’t open the door to those sorts of challenges.

And, in turn, to gatekeeping out people who might not be “queer enough” (ie, close enough to exclusively gay or lesbian) — in practice, trying to define queer leads to defining queer in a way that excludes aces or some trans people or all trans people or bi/pan people with opposite sex partners, or all of the above.

(Not entirely happy with how I’m using the term “sex” here, because I get “biological sex” can be a complex and very loaded concept for many trans people. If someone sees something they’re uncomfortable with and can suggest a better alt phrasing let me know.)

So, people tend to react to “queer shouldn’t be self-defined” in exactly the same way they’d respond to ace exclusionism or terf talk. Because...in practice, insisting queer has to have a fixed definition (or telling people to not use the word) tends to be round one of a game that ends with exactly those things. Even if you personally didn’t mean it that way, the rest of us don’t know that. We react to it like anti-racist activists respond to “All Lives Matter” — maybe it could be innocuous confusion, but it comes from a place of malice often enough that people do tend to assume malice.

Because the idea of fakers who are really straight infiltrating the community...that’s a terf idea and an exclusionist idea, and it doesn’t really fit with any robust and self-consistent understanding of queerness other than those ideologies.

#commenting on without reblogging #lgbtq+#queer #queer gatekeeping #long post #you’re not really queer you’re actually just a straight person pretending to be queer #gets weaponized against actual queer people so often #it’s a bit like how if someone’s sitting in the disabled seating area on the bus #or using an accessible bathroom stall #you should just assume they have an invisible disability #becuade an abled person ‘getting away’ with that #is much less of a big deal than an invisibly disabled person #getting harassed yet again becuade they don’t look disabled #discourse

6 notes · View notes