#to be clear I'm not upset about the use of the word queer and if you anti-queer freaks touch my post I WILL f*ck your mom | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mr-ribbit · 2 months

Text

gonna rant again bc im seeing a lot of trans women on my dash having to carry the heavy lifting to argue for their basic respect and a lot of other queer people who want to ??? get mad about that apparently. for the record as usual: im tme, im not speaking for anyone besides myself and my perspectives, but I am trying to reach out to fellow tme people to level with y'all from inside the house.

i thought we all got past the 'calling people gendered terms when theyve asked you to stop' thing in like. 2012. i swear we were allllll on board with not calling women dude anymore, nerfing sir and ma'am, neutralizing collective terms for groups, and all of that was like, during the onceler era. that's how we got off-putting shit like folx into the mix - remember???? why are we here again.

to those who I've seen claiming that they REALLY genuinely don't want to offend anyone, and that theyre trying to understand the dude thing, and they don't want to be seen as transmisogynistic when they aren't: ok. let's talk about it. step one, stop sending that really loaded anon to a trans woman you don't know, and close that in-group hatepost with 100 replies from people name-dropping trans bloggers they don't like. try to open your mind and assume for the duration of this post that I am not cynically trying manipulate thousands of tumblr users into making Bro the next big swear word, but a fellow queer human being who thinks you're all being pretty intentionally obtuse about an upsetting trend in our community

to be clear: this post is about the issue of trans women being called bro, dude, man, etc., particularly in recent tumblr discourse about transmisogyny, and the backlash they face if they get upset about it. this is also maybe moreso about the shitty ass excuses I see tme people make for why they supposedly can't stop doing this.

so let's go through some of the things I've been seeing people say they don't understand, supposedly in earnest, about this issue

"I DIDNT USE DUDE AS A MASCULINE TERM. I CALL EVERYONE BRO. MAN IS A GENDER NEUTRAL TERM"

I'm not actually going to exhaust my list of reasons why dude/bro/man are not strictly neutral, but you should be pretty aware that all words have context. Dude might be seen as neutral in many contexts, sure, but 'woman who is frequently called a man by others' is a situation where the context adds extra meaning to your words, just like calling someone "sweetie" might be neutral in some cases, but if you've got the context of knowing that's your coworker who's half your age, it's a bit less neutral. If you're not capable of reading that context and being tasteful about when you say dude, then you need to at least be ready to respond gracefully when someone asks you to stop. This is the part I'd rather focus on.

"BUT I DIDNT MEAN IT THAT WAY. IM NOT TRANSPHOBIC"

I think you should consider broadening your perspective *beyond* your intention behind the word. people may already understand that you meant the word neutrally and therefore didn't have transmisogynistic intent, but that's not really the entire scope of what people are saying. if that's your only concern, you're just trying to clear your record, not actually listen to what they're saying.

there are lots of words people don't enjoy being called, and in most cases, when they say 'pls don't call me that', people respect that and move on. even if the word isn't a slur, if it hurts someone's feelings, we all as a society have agreed that it's pretty shitty to keep calling them that. if your friend asked you not to call them 'buddy' anymore because their dead grandparent called them that, or something equivalently personal, you'd probably respect that instead of telling them 'but I call everyone buddy!!' right? even if you didn't really understand why it bothered them so much?

there is a prominent tendency for trans women to be denied this privilege, and when they ask not to be called dude or bro, people don't seem to respect this request as much as they would in other situations. when I accidentally use a gendered word and someone tells me they don't like it, I try to respond with something like "my bad, I didn't mean it as misgendering but I can see you were still bothered by it, so I'll try not to keep saying it. sorry!" and most people are willing to accept that. when trans women ask people this favor, a lot of people get VERY defensive, and treat the request as inane or unfair, instead of just apologizing and moving on. this is why people are upset when this happens, and it's why people are calling your actions transmisogynistic

also like you might not be doing this, but a lot of people DO use dude and bro in an intentionally gendered way to make trans women uncomfortable. it's a power play bigots use to talk down to them or otherwise maliciously harass them. do you know what arguments they use to defend that behavior when called out on it? 'oh I call everyone that' 'dude is gender neutral calm down' 'dont overreact its just a word'. by acting like this, youre all just giving credence to those same arguments.

"WELL THEY SHOULDNT GET SO MAD AT ME WHEN I DIDNT MEAN ANY HARM"

they can get as mad as they want!! also, are you sure they're 'mad'? or are they just expressing their feelings about a negative topic to you, and it makes you feel bad, so you have to make them out to be unreasonably emotional? how do you think they should have phrased 'dont call me that' to better spare *your* feelings?

also like, in most cases, these women do not knowww you. if your main response to someone saying you disrespected them is to say "I didnt mean it that way, I meant it in a friendly neutral way", well that's NOT YOUR FRIEND! she has no idea what your opinions are or what you think of her!!! she has no reason to assume you only upset her in a friendly way and not a bad unfriendly way! but she did get upset, and she did the one thing she can do which is *tell you what upset her* and your response is to say "well actually you shouldn't be upset at all"??????

and another thing:

it's not just the issue of using the word 'dude', it's because you're coming off extremely dismissive of women who have asked you to stop doing something that harms them, and because your argument is basically that they just shouldn't be so bothered by it. or that they're stupid, irrational, or otherwise crazy for telling you that it bothered them at all, just because you Technically used a gender neutral word according to Your Rules. be honest, does that seem fair? If people were calling you something that bothered you enough to ask them to stop, and they responded like this, how would it make you feel?

focusing solely on your intent and what the words mean when you use them is the same thing as saying "just get over it". no woman should need to Prove to you that 'dude' is gendered for you to care about what she's saying. the fact that you're asking people to do that sucks and makes you look bad, which is why people are arguing with you and calling you a misogynist.

especially those of you who are only doing this with trans women who are actively arguing with. you're wielding misgendering as a cudgel and we can all see it, grow up please.

#discourse cw #transmisogyny cw

1K notes · View notes

orkbutch · 27 days

Text

So, I'm not really in the weeds of Transgender Discourse on the internet (I have a life and also care about my mental health) but I've seen something discussed here about trans masculinity and I wanna talk about it.

I'm very masculine. I'm butch, I'm trans masc, I've always wanted to be masculine and I feel most comfortable when I'm presenting as such. Without much effort or any intention on my part I am read as a cis man day to day. Because I don't present more fem, in queer spaces I am read and recieved as a man, maybe trans, probably into other men. People do not even consider if I'm a butch lesbian unless there's Significant context indicating it. Because of this I'm viewed through 'Man Lens'; It feels a different if I say 'bitch', if I talk about my attraction to women. I don't get smiled at, people put physical distance between me and them as much as possible.

This is familiar for a lot of trans masculine people and trans men that aren't androgynous/fem leaning in their style, and it is an upsetting change to happen. It makes us feel judged or misunderstood to suddenly be causing this wariness in others; it feels prejudiced. I've seen people putting words to this like transmisandry. This is something they want to lessen in their communities, so they don't have to experience this anymore.

Now, here's my opinion part: That's not going to happen. You cannot tackle the "problem" of people responding to your masculinity with wariness. They aren't controlling the wariness, they can't. More importantly, their wariness toward masculinity and what registers in their brain as "man-like" is well founded. It's based in lifetimes of experiences and trauma that has told them men can be very unsafe to be around, and that is true. Most men are cis, and cis men are the most threatening thing in this world to non-cis men. They are usually* socially privileged above others, more likely to inflict violence, more likely to abuse and murder others, are typically physically more powerful than others. Everyone thats not a cis man DEEPLY internalises a very rational wariness of men, and masculine presentation as an extension. Especially men that are strangers. (*This is of course different when we consider intersections of race, colonialism, classism, ect. But globally this generalisation is still pretty accurate.)

Honestly, I don't think this wariness towards masculine presentation is something thats useful or realistic to challenge. Like many internalised processes it's probably a good idea to examine it and consider its usefulness, but I think it'd be easy to conclude that it is a useful wariness for people to have. Women have lots of reasons to be wary around men, including the unique threats of transmisogyny. Queer and gender deviant men have lots of reasons to be wary around men. This is The Reality of patriarchy.

Personally, the place I've come to with how women and queer people react to my masculinity (which is not entirely negative btw, the wariness is just one aspect) is that... I understand their wariness. I have it too, toward those my brain assumes are cis men. I cannot control how they feel or what they think about me. I can only be respectful to others and to myself and live my life. I flag my butchness where I can, I make my gender clear to those it matters to, and the rest I accept as largely beyond my influence. All of us have to do this in some places in our lives.

Even though my masculinity makes other queers wary, I have lots of friends! I've had no real trouble dating or finding intimacy. Initial wariness is just that. Once you understand each other, break the barrier, its usually settled. For anyone who finds my masculinity so offputting that we can't break the barrier, I'm glad neither of us put each other through that discomfort. I understand where a fear like that comes from. I will still hold community with them because that's what solidarity entails.

Anyway thats my ramble about masculinity in queer community, good bye until another. who knows how long

#back on the tumblr diary #personal #edited the section about women having reasons to fear men and transmisogyny; poorly phrased lol.

136 notes · View notes

imaginarylungfish · 2 months

Note

AUDHD 👏 GOJO 👏

I’m right there with you so, in true AuDHD style, I’m zooming into your inbox to infodump because I’m ALWAYS desperate to scream about this (shout out to @ellionwrites for patiently and compassionately listening to my unpolished rambles about a lot of this stuff in private)!

I actually have a LOT of thoughts about 236 and how it’s Gojo’s “unmasking”. That chapter is really emotional for me because of how well it articulates my personal experience of navigating the world as an autistic person. This post (and especially its tags) from right after it came out says it in a much more concise way, but Gojo’s upset pout breaks my heart because, to me, that's evidence of “no matter how much you try, people will misunderstand you” and damn… that hits a little close to home 🥲

It’s why his death had such a strong impact on me, especially when it felt like half the internet was ignoring the actual words Gojo said to claim “he never cared about that stuff, he was arrogant from the start and you just misread him". In combination with “it was the best ending for a character like Gojo" — right after we find out how deeply lonely he’s been, never able to truly connect with anyone after Geto left? Well, it was mindblowingly meta and, therefore, pretty painful to read.

I wrote an analysis of Gojo’s character in 236 and, even though I wasn’t viewing him through an autistic lens for that particular post, I think my words under the cut still read that way — that’s how baked into his character I think this stuff is! I genuinely think the two pairs of sorcerers sitting with their backs to each other is a visual representation of the double empathy problem. I'm not sure autistic and allistic people can ever arrive at a place where we fully understand each other, but that doesn’t mean autistic people have to carry all the burden and remain isolated. That’s why it’s meaningful that Gege makes it clear that all the characters care about each other, even if they don’t see eye-to-eye.

Glad to see you shouting about this reading of his character, because I haven’t seen many people talking about it. Some people are very hostile to ND headcanons, especially for characters as popular as Gojo, which is why I haven’t really talked about it much myself. However, I feel like any fellow AuDHDers who read my fic must be side-eying me constantly because I don’t think I’m subtle about how I write Gojo’s character at ALL 🤪

Maybe it’s time to be brave and publicly share my 236 AuDHD!Gojo manifesto for the five of us who are standing in a circle screaming about this! Cheering you on and sending lots of love ♥️

Ahhhhh thank you so much for this infodump!!!! I was on a AuDHD!Gojo rampage last night as my brain worm hit right as I should have been going to sleep. But such are things....

Like idk why it didn't truly hit me until now, but I can't unseen Gojo as AuDHD. (It was probably because I re-watched "Everything's Gonna be Okay" with some AuDHD representation and then I started thinking of other AuDHD characters and immediately thought of Gojo.) I did play with the idea a few months back, but it hit me with full force yesterday.

Idk like I get a little annoyed with people who think I or others like Gojo just because "he's hot" because like okay fine yes (but also I think I just have gender envy but that's a whole other can of worms). But also, no no no that's not it! My love for Gojo is more than that! He speaks to me as a character. He's misunderstood. He's seen as something he isn't. In my eyes, he's neurodivergent (and queer). And Geto was the only other person who ever saw him for who he really was.

Gojo's death was really hard on me. I remember exactly where I was when I read that chapter. And then the airport. Fuck. EmOtIOns. At first, I tried understanding Nanami's words. I really did. But really, I just didn't if I'm honest. Those words were a shock to me. Like yeah okay he's selfish (but like aren't all humans?). He also helps though! Isn't that obvious? And at the end? He wanted to have an equal to go all out with in a fight. Again, why was that bad? He was also helping! What's the issue? He's a fallible human. Like you said in your analysis, he contains multitudes. What's wrong with that?

So, like many others, I thought maybe I misread Gojo. But no. Now I think the missing piece was that Gojo is AuDHD and Nanami didn't quite get that. He didn't understand Gojo's actions. (And ahh god that lil pout. Gojo was just living his life and people saw him but they never ~saw~ him.)

I think the visual of the sorcerers back-to-back is a great metaphor for the double empathy problem. I never saw it that way, but I see it now and like it! And I think you're so right with the fact that the characters still respect and support each other even if they don't understand each other fully. I think that's a theme woven throughout the story.

Blahhh I feel like there is so much textual support for AuDHD Gojo. Like him being blindsided by Geto's defection because he didn't see Geto's decline (and don't get me started about Autistic!Geto with his strict black-and-white thinking), him just blabbing about sweets when he meets up with Megumi before fighting one-finger Sukuna at the beginning, the fact he thought revealing Yuuji to his classmates at the exchange event would be funny (cause hey, I thought it would too until it happened and I saw oh hey, it wasn't), etc. Plus, his blindfold. His overall personality. Like, it's such a heavy mask. Now I see that.

I feel like people either love Gojo or they hate him. (I immediately gobbled up your analysis and 100% agree. And I think people's reactions to his death are pretty telling.)

So, thank you for the yummy AuDHD!Gojo content. Please feel free to send me more/link me to things. I feel like I have a million more things to say but my brain is jumping all over the place and I've already spent 40 minutes this morning on this when I should have been getting ready for work. Hehe, whoops.

Gojo is AuDHD. I will die on this hill. Let's keep staring and screaming at each other about this. Sending you good vibes and love as well 🤍

#gojo headcanons #audhd gojo #neurodivergent gojo #autistic gojo #adhd gojo

18 notes · View notes

xxguardiantreexx · 6 months

Text

!!SPOILERS FOR OMFD S2 FINALE!!

I want to talk about the finale of OFMD, and specifically about why exactly Izzy's death makes me feel so despondent.

So I usually try to stay out of discourse, especially when it has a fandom as divided as this one seems to be now. And I sincerely don't want this to be taken as me being JUST ticked off or anything. But I feel like Izzy's death, while upsetting on it's own, speaks to a larger problem this season struggled with.

Season one, to me, was a gem. My mom's the one who discovered it and told me to watch it, we ended up watching it together and I was hooked (no pun intended) and flat out thrilled to be watching a show that so lovingly showcased positive queer rep and had a tight, hilarious, and touching storyline front to back. I was a wreck (why all the accidental puns today??) when it was over and couldn't wait for season two.

And season two WAS good! It was funny, I loved Buttons arc and Calypso's birthday and all the other great moments this season had. But to me, the biggest problem is that the pacing was really rushed and the writing too convoluted and crammed full of plot points that didn't fit together in the time allotted.

I've seen people on Twitter saying that the episodes never gave the story room to breathe, to let the audience finish reacting to One Thing before moving on to The Next Thing. They introduced new characters, villains, big monumental moments, and I never once felt like I had time to take any of it in with the love and appreciation I would have liked to because things just kept happening.

I don't know if this was a product of the writing itself being flawed on it's own, or HBO not giving OFMD the amount of episodes it deserves, or both. And just to be clear, I do not condone or agree with anyone harassing the creators for answers, or telling them they're dicks or whatever, because that's wrong.

But in my opinion, this season just didn't work. Season one did a great job of balancing it's episodic shenanigans with it's ongoing storyline, and while nothing is perfect, it was very well written and paced.

And that is why I have a big problem with how they handled the death of Izzy Hands being the completion of his character arc.

Here we have a very repressed, battered and broken man RELUCTANTLY coming back from the brink of death, struggling with his handicaps, damaged relationships and purposelessness on The Revenge. And we slowly see him begin to rebuild himself from the ground up. He creates meaningful emotional bonds with the crew he outright hated throughout all of season one, finds a place for his years of experience again when teaching Stede how to be a real pirate, and comes to terms with his relationship with Ed, and Ed's relationship with Stede. He makes peace with all of it and lets the love of the crew, of family, drive him forward for what little time he has left, because he was always on borrowed time by this point.

Ending a character arc with having said character die sucks, because it hurts when it's a character you care deeply about. But it can work, and it HAS worked. That's why writers keep torturing us by doing it.

The problem for me comes back to pacing.

It's the fact Izzy died by a random gunshot wound because he was standing in the wrong place. It's the fact Izzy died for what reads very much as a way to progress Ed's character arc, not end his own. It's the fact Izzy died and the reaction of the rest of the crew was shown so minimally, with nary a word said about it in the aftermath. It's the fact Izzy died and we were immediately swept off into the wedding scene and the introduction of the inn, without giving us, the audience, a quiet moment to grieve as well.

I'm not saying he necessarily needed a bombastic death scene, or for the season to end on an exceedingly somber note. But I feel like Izzy, for all he'd done this season and the growth his character attained, more than deserved a heroes death and clearer acknowledgement by his family. Not to give Ed, who's just kind of existed this season to me, a pep talk with his dying breath and for everyone to just move on immediately.

If there had been time given for this story to breathe, as much as it would have saddened me, I think this could have worked. I think Izzy could have died and it would have had more meaning, the meaning I'm sure they'd hoped it would when they decided to kill him off.

But it didn't work. Not to me at least, and I'm sad about it. A lot of us are sad about it, and will continue to be. Because we still need time to grieve before we can move on. I know it's just a show, and he's just a character in it, but it's a show that's meant so much to so many people, made us feel seen and accepted in a world where that's harder to come by than it should be. And to see a character so beloved get treated as a plot device to an extent at the end of his journey... I would have just loved better for him.

R.I.P. our brash, loud, exceptional unicorn, Izzy Hands.

#our flag means death #ofmd #izzy hands #israel hands

26 notes · View notes

qui-qui-quee · 6 months

Text

The Righteousness Barrier (long post)

AKA Christians, Stop Othering!

So here is the post I kept saying I'd make. As a disclaimer, if you expect me to be backing up whatever I'm about to say with Scriptures and verses, then I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. Whatever you read will be rough, wild, perhaps a little unorganized, but it's the best I can do for now.

And by all accounts, I can be wrong. Whatever I'm about to say, you can take it with a grain of salt if you so please. But I also ask that you read with good faith curiosity, and not with the internal aim to dismantle my points or go "this person is insane".

So. Here goes nothing. My realizations about what prioritizing sin does to us:

When we focus too much or prioritize sin vs. righteousness, we are unable to love other people to the fullest extent.

What do I mean by this?

Think about it. You grow up being taught what is sin, what is not, how to be righteous, how to avoid upsetting God with all of these guidelines, rules, verses, Scripture, whatever you want to call it. You listen to other people, or you study the Word on your own, or through the guidance of past, "strong" believers and theologians, and come to believe your convictions are true and/or the Scriptures are clear when they're used to back up these claims about what is good vs evil. So you live with this sense that because you are following or trying to follow these guideline, you are in God's will. And that those who do not are in sin, are lost, are plain wrong, are under the wrath of God, not following God's will, etc.

Then one day, you meet a person who believes very differently from you or disagrees with certain theologies. Or even a nonbeliever.

What do you think or feel about that person? Where does your mind immediately go?

I bet that many of you will say "this is a person loved by God, thus I will love them too."

But wait, I want to challenge you on that, because I don't think you or I would be telling the truth if we immediately make that claim.

Why? Because I think that's all just darn lip-service, and at the back of our minds whether unconsciously or not, our first thought will immediately go to their sin and unrighteousness especially once we find out about those disagreements (and it's not limited to just religious people).

That tendency, that instinct to judge a person by whether they have the right beliefs or not, serves as a big hindrance rather than asset when it comes to truly loving other people.

Chew on it. Picture yourself as a cis evangelical believing in "biblical" (traditional) marriage. Then think about how your queer loved ones may invite you to their same-sex marriage. Or perhaps, they ask you to call them by certain pronouns or refer to them by a certain gender. Or maybe they want to talk about their romantic partners who are living with them but are unmarried and are clearly sexually active.

Or picture yourself as someone incredibly pro-justice and then you meet someone who is wealthy and whose business doesn't treat their workers right. Or on the contrary, you believe in the necessity for working for your wealth, but then you meet a person who is living on welfare and doesn't appear to be doing anything to get out of their status and are busying themselves with drugs or whatnot.

Or, God forbid, you meet a self-described pedophile or minor-attracted person.

Do you feel uncomfortable when picturing yourself in such situations? Do you have real-life experience? Does it make you wish you didn't have to deal with any of that at all?

If so, that is precisely what I'm talking about: That discomfort.

(If not then I dunno why you're still reading this)

"Quiche, why would you lump all those things together? How dare you compare us to them?"

Ok I need to say this because social media is nasty:

Do not get me wrong, those are all very different and each have very different sets of consequences ranging from none (queerness) to actual jail time (child abuse or porn, robbery). But that's not my point here right now.

I am focusing on us. The discomfort we feel.

That discomfort can have a purpose, whether to protect us spiritually or to push us to justice. But in more cases than not, such as, I will argue, sexuality and gender, it's like a metal pole we stick between us and our neighbor, keeping us from getting closer to them.

In latter cases, that discomfort is our innate sense of self-righteousness shutting our heart out to that person. Our mindset about that person becomes set if that is our focus and it changes the way we relate to them.

We talk less with them. We spend less time with them. We don't get excited about changes in their life related to those things we think are wrong (unless it pushes them towards our camp). We keep thinking "this person is not in a good place and I don't want to encourage them to go further down that bad place."

That's the kicker. We become scared of possibly encouraging them towards bad behavior and belief. And we stop being able to really relate with them. That is the kind of barrier I'm talking about.

It prevents us from building deep, close-knit connections. It already has. How many of you lost friends because you had different beliefs about sexuality and gender? How much closer could you have been with that person if it weren't for the fact that they were trans or some other gender or some other wildly different denomination or religion?

In my own life, I have lost friends simply because of believing a very stringent view of sexuality. And for awhile, I believed it was solely their problem, not mine, when they left. I had failed to see the harm of holding on to those beliefs so strongly to the point it kept me from really getting to know people (not to mention the far more harmful consequences such as hate crimes and abandonment).

It wasn't until I learned to loosen those beliefs even a little bit, to consider the possibility of me being wrong about all this, did I realize I had the God-given freedom to deepen these relationships with others who were not necessarily in my "camp", without worrying about "condoning" or "encouraging" their "unbiblical" behaviors. Yet even now, I am still struggling with that as I continue on this little deconstruction journey.

After all, I am a product of Western evangelism where I was taught that we had all these doctrines right. But I digress.

Someone else had a term for this kind of behavior and thought process. It's called "Othering" and it is a product of our tendencies to categorize and imo, by extent, our sense of self-righteousness. We see someone we think are wrong or different and we immediately start "othering" them, setting them away from us. So we become blind to the way God can work in their lives, their potential to live a full life away from our camps. Instead of investing on each other, to spur each other towards love, peace, kindness, etc or even just being there for them, we think about their sin and keep an arm's length away and only really connect if there is a possibility that they will jump into our side of the issue.

So I suppose that's my challenge to everyone here, and to myself really. To really study the way Jesus broke down those barriers despite being as Holy as One can Be, by truly connecting with the "Other".

I challenge us to be more aware of our tendencies to "Other", our instinct to put differences above personhood, and to do our best to go against that instinct. I challenge us to worry less about someone else's sin and instead, trust in the Lord's sovereignty, the Holy Spirit's power, as we do our best to deepen those connections we are given and live abundant lives together.

There is no way we can bring God's kingdom to the world otherwise.

#qooky speaks #finally made that post guys #christianity #obviously this is subject to edits

10 notes · View notes

werewolf-cuddles · 10 months

Note

Heyo. I want to make it clear that I totally agree with your fears and upsetness as the potential bi-erasure, it's a topic that pisses me off too. But, I do want to take a minute to play devil's advocate, or at least spin a positive alternative until we know anything for sure. A lot of queer circles use the LQBT+ terms/labels in a much less rigid, more fluid sense- such as bi women using the terms 'lesbian' or 'gay' when talking about their attraction to women. In these contexts, it's not meant to contradict their bi identities. You also see it as an adjective a lot- a bi women saying "I'm having lesbian/gay thoughts" or something.

So I definitely see the fear of bi erasure, and the fandom at large is totally using this to paint over any bi Ivy history, which sucks ass. But, it may be possible that using the term lesbian to describe the plot was using it as a synonym for sapphic/wlw, with no intention of being so inflammatory. I don't have the larger context, and we can't know the speakers intent until further statements are made- and it IS plenty likely that the speaker IS just biphobic. But I do hope this offers a more hopeful/less harmful alternative, until we know more.

Honestly, I'm really hoping that's the case, that this was just a case of bad wording and that Ivy is still canonically bisexual.

Even still, describing all WLW content as "lesbian" isn't exactly a great look either. "Sapphic" would have been a much less inflamatory word to use here.

#biphobia #bisexual erasure

25 notes · View notes

hareofhrair · 30 days

Text

@alexseanchai

Hi, I saw your tags on the porn ban/purity culture post and I wanted to respond to them, hope that's okay? Didn't want to put it on the original post because that's already crazy long, lol. Disclaimer, this is not an attack and I'm not upset with you or angry about these tags! I can be bad at tone, but my intention here is just to explain because I Fucking Love Explaining Things.

So what the tags said was:

My post was about how the porn ban was spearheaded by a christian group that wants to eliminate porn everywhere.

This person's tags suggest that there was an ulterior motive. Let's break it down line by line.

"It's also specifically to keep teenagers as ill informed about sexuality as possible to make them easier to prey on."

By using the word "specifically" they are saying that is an additional, intended purpose of the movement to ban porn. That what the porn ban is actually working towards is making teens into easier victims.

There are a lot of disgusting creeps hiding behind the banner of evangelism.

The use of "disgusting creeps" here could refer to abuse by family and religious authorities. But in this context, they're using it as an explanation for their assertion in the first line. The intended purpose of the porn ban is to make it easier to prey on teens because there are a lot of creeps in the evangelical movement. You could restructure the statement like this:

"There are a lot of disgusting creeps hiding behind the banner of evangelism, specifically to keep teenagers as ill informed about sexuality as possible to make them easier to prey on."

Which makes it a little more obvious. The creeps are using evangelism to make teens easier to prey on. And since the person specifies they are doing it to prey on teens, that makes it clear what they mean by "disgusting creeps." You can just swap that word out for pedophiles.

"There are a lot of pedophiles hiding behind the banner of evangelism, specifically to keep teenagers as ill informed about sexuality as possible to make them easier to prey on."

And since this is in reference to a specific action taken by a christian political group, we are to assume the pedophiles have infiltrated this group and are using it to further their own ends.

They are claiming there's an organized group of evangelical pedophiles taking intentional political action to make it easier for them to attack children.

I responded by informing them that most of the people who sexually abuse children do not have an established attraction to children. They are not actually attracted to children. They are attracted to the power and control abuse gives them. And they primarily attack family members, children they already have access to. They are not scheming to find ways to attack more children, because sex with children is not what they are after. People who are actually sexually attracted to children are very rare, the majority never attack anyone, and they are certainly not taking part in an organized political effort to get better access to victims.

THIS IS CONSPIRACY THOUGHT.

And people fall for it because of their eagerness to ascribe deviant sexuality to people they don't agree with, and because of the "world of sexual menace" I talk about in the last post, which has them convinced sexual predators are everywhere.

I don't deny that patriarchal structures make it easier for abusers to get away with it, but we're not going to dismantle those structures as long as we still think we need to defend our children from an army of pedophiles.

That's my whole point. You can't look at conservative christians claiming all queer people are pedophiles, recognize how ridiculous of an assertion that is, and then seriously turn around and say "actually all the pedophiles are on YOUR side!"

Okay, lecture done, thank you for letting me explain more things!

4 notes · View notes

vaspider · 2 years

Note

Since the queer post is going around, I want to send an ask thanking you for making me realize something. (It's not about the word queer; I've always been vehemently pro-queer--but that's another topic.) There was something in that post about how someone reblogged your post with rude tags and had a MOGAI/SJW/etc. DNI in their blog. And in the post, you made it clear you just blocked them and moved on. You respected their DNI.

I don't know why it didn't hit me to respect people's wishes even when I so vehemently believe they're wrong, even when they might be sorta-directly sorta-indirectly rude to me on the internet. Logically and without emotions, I know nothing good could come of it. At best, it would be nothing but an unmemorable interaction for that person, but at worst, but I might solidify their views I'm trying to change.

But that part almost doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter if I could change their mind. What matters is that they have asked me not to interact. If I truly want to respect them in a way that I think is so essential, I need to be able to not interact with people, even when my brain is screaming at me to.

I can't explain why this was an eye-opening moment for me. Maybe it was because you were so upset (and with good reason) and you still chose to respect them. Maybe it was because you didn't back down from your anger over it, you didn't invalidate your own feelings--you just recognized they had the right to their own.

It's hard to explain, because it's not like that urge to yell at these people has gone away. But now I feel an understanding for why it's so fundamentally wrong and against what I believe in. I can't force people to interact with me if I disagree with them. The best I can do is curate my own space online, and take the opportunities when people with differing opinions are actually willing and open to talking to me.

Anyway. Thank you for the post. Both for being so loudly pro-queer and for helping me realize being respectful isn't about being right, it's about understanding.

Honestly, it's not about respecting their DNI. I don't really read DNIs on people who begin interaction with me - if someone talks to me, I'm not going to check and see if it's okay for me to answer them. But like... if I happen to see it, and someone is interacting with me despite their own DNI, or is pulling that whole, uhhh... "I'm talking to you, but don't you dare respond to me or you are violating my DNI," I block them because that shit is tiresome, I'm 45 years old, and I really just don't have enough hours left on this earth to indulge that kind of trifling nonsense.

They have their right to their feelings, yes. Everyone has the right to be a dick if they really want to, for that matter. Whether their feelings are genuine or they are just being a dick about it all, I just don't have time for fussing over it. They're strangers on the internet who think my identity is a word too bad to use.

I really don't know if I'm as understanding as you paint me to be, that is to say. But thank you?

63 notes · View notes

necromanceyourgays · 9 months

Text

Why Darkhearts made itself my least favourite YA book within the first half of it: a summary, review, and rant.

this is 2k words, please be advised before continuing lol.

Before we get into the book itself, let's talk about the author, James L. Sutter. Sutter is more known for being the co-creator of Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, acclaimed as the second most popular TTRPG, right next to D&D. Which is an amazing accomplishment in itself. According to the acknowledgements at the end of DarkHearts, and his Wikipedia page, this is his first ever YA novel, not to mention first ever queer romance novel. But I still have a vendetta against this book, so let's get into why.

You're introduced to the characters at their mutual friend, Elijiah's, funeral. The main character, David Holcum (17), refers to Eli as his enemy in the first line. Then, the romantic interest Chance Ng (18) (stage name Chance Kain) is introduced as Eli's best friend, and, quote, "America's favourite asshole". It becomes clear that Chance and Eli were famous, the book states that celebrities showed up to Eli's funeral, and this is when you get the mention of the band, Darkhearts.

This is where I get sick of explaining it by when the facts are introduced, but you get the shtick now, right? Spoilers beyond this point.

On page 5 (I'll be telling you which pages so you have an idea of the pacing) Chance is upset over Eli and says "How could you just leave us?" then leaves the basement he and David are talking in. Of course, David spins this whole thing on him, thinking 'The same way you both left me’.

Might not seem too bad, I mean, it could've been worse than I'm making it seem, so let's summarize.

On page 7, it's revealed David left the band on his own. He left the band by himself, on his own accord. So. he's comparing his best friend's suicide due to alcoholism caused by the pressures of childhood fame to his leaving a band at the age of 14. This is when I started to hate David Holcum.

They introduced Ridley McNeill, David's best friend, who is a black girl (her race is brought up a lot, actually) who is obsessed with Chance and Darkhearts. And I mean obsessed. When she's not talking about Chance she's making film references. It made no sense as to why David would be friends with someone obsessed with his supposed enemy but to each their own.

Skipping to page 59. Ridley and David are given VIP tickets to Eli's tribute concert, which David agrees to go to. It's not that important, but it is a sign that David is hating Chance a little less. Three days later, David asks Chance to go golfing at a pop-up punk mini golf place (a mouthful), to which Chance is afraid to be recognised. David immediately starts being a dick about it, saying he's "not THAT famous", and he ends up telling him to forget it, but Chqance agrees to go.

Does David sound a bit narcissistic to anyone else?

Also, this is the first time I fully realized Sutter doesn't know how kids talk over text. In comparison to Alice Oseman (bless her entire soul), it's horrible. In 'Loveless', one of my favourite Oseman books, the conversations over text between all the characters, especially Rooney and Georgia, felt directly out of my Instagram DMs. David and Chance's texts felt like I was reading my 50-year-old mom's Messanger conversations. I'll talk more about this later.

Page 90, Chance invites David over to work out together (do cis guys do that? Is that a bro thing I'm not familiar with?), and while doing sit-ups, David has the thought "You could kiss him right now". Okay. I liked this part. A bit fast, not a lot of buildup, but it was a good line. David soon leaves because Chance is busy, and is left with the fact he has feelings for Chance.

I guess it makes sense it'd move this fast, childhood friends and all, but I still feel like there could've been more build-up surrounding it. A little bit more spice.

Page 99, leading into chapter 10, Chance texts David while Ridley and he are hanging out and asks if he can come to pick him up. Ridley convinces him to say yes and he goes. Chance asks him to "just drive", and David ends up going far enough to where they don't have cell reception.

Here, Chance reveals the record company is pushing him to make an album, even though Eli hasn't even been gone for a month. Chance vents about being scared to lose his fame, and everything he and Eli built, and obviously David doesn't like this. Especially his use of the phrase "a has-been at eighteen".

David goes off on Chance, saying he doesn't see Chance as a friend and all this is just "reliving [his] middle-school highlights reel". Chance says he was trying to rebuild bridges and that David can't go five minutes without being jealous. True. Go off, Chance, you deserve it my little blorbo.

Chance reveals he would've let David back in the band afterwards, and that he wanted him back. They fight more. Physically. A little vaguely homoerotic, but whatever. They call a truce, and Chance bursts into tears.

He says he killed Eli, and David freaks out internally. David ends up comforting him, etc etc, they're sitting in the dirt hugging. Then they kiss circa page 114. Whoo?

After reading this, it seems everything went a bit fast. I wish we could've seen an excerpt of Chance's point of view on this because all of it seems to go by really fast once you look back on the actual pacing of it all.

They go back, and David's dad is pissed because he stayed out until 3 am, he's grounded.

Page 134, he gets ungrounded and goes swimming with Chance in a secluded pond. They come to the consensus it's a date, then there's, uh, how do I explain this? Smut. Sort of. Just the build-up, and then they decide not to go farther, but damn it caught me off guard.

Halfway through the book now, and I regret making this so long.

Page 141, Chance's manager, Ben, sees them kissing and immediately says Chance has to hide it because of his audience. Bullshit, first of all! MCR probably got more popular because of the Frerard shipping, not to mention the shipping in P!ATD and FOB. Being openly queer generates a whole different audience, a kinder one. But this cishet man can't see that and tells Chance to keep it quiet.

David decides to not tell Ridley they're dating. Valid.

Page 152, David invites Chance over to his house and shows him the woodshop. Realising now that I haven't said anything about David's dad being a construction worker. Oops. It's mentioned David wants to do a fellowship instead of college somewhere. Keep that in mind.

They homoerotically cut wood. That's all I'm saying about this part. Chance awkwardly sits on David's bed to watch a movie and spoiler alert: they have sex. If it counts as that? It's just (putting this awkwardly) hand stuff. And fade to black. Sort of. I officially hate smut. Goodnight.

A few pages later, they're on a date again. They talk about them and their sexualities, and it wasn't that cringe. Actually liked this bit. David then takes Chance to a church he and his father's crew are doing renovations on and takes him up to the bell tower.

David mentions rejoining Darkhearts. Woah. Chance is on the fence about it. Nervous it'll make them hate each other again. David gets mad. David reminds me of my mother at this point. Chance agrees to the idea after some yelling. Whoo?

Page 192, David gets an email from a magazine called Pop Lock, which gives me BTS Dispatch vibes. David responds 'no comment', Chance's manager is pissed about it. To dispel the rumours of Chance and David dating, Ridley and Chance go on a fake date. David gets jealous.

A few pages afterwards, David and Chance come up with a re-debut song. They fight a bit. They really can't go one convo without an argument, what the fuck?

Page 219, Chance goes on vacation with his family and he's not allowed to have a phone on him. For five days, they don't talk. Chance gets back, they meet up, and they kiss. Etc. Normal bf stuff. David surprises Chance by teaching him how to drive, and it's an important moment for both of them. Very sweet, can appreciate this part. David invites Chance to Ridley's "cliche high school party" (with costumes!), to which Chance is worried about going but caves in anyways.

Page 250, Party Time! Everything going well but Chance is getting flirted with and asked to sing. Obviously, he's not happy about this. Chance ends up going outside to smoke, David finds him and says Chance should be flattered by the attention he's getting. They fight. Again. JFC.

Ridley sees them making out, and he and her get into a fight about not telling her. She calls Chance scared to come out for real, which is incredibly insensitive. Everyone should have time to come out on their own schedule, Ridley should know that. This line made me hate her.

Chance leaves on a trip, they stop talking as much. David tells his Dad they're dating.

Chapter 26 and page 283 roll around, and David auditions for Darkhearts to convince the label to let him rejoin.

It goes to shit. Fights all around. Chance changed the prewritten lyrics from a lovesong to a breakup song without saying shit to David, which was a bit of a dick move, but David deserved it. #davidholcumhateclub. They break up.

David then tells Ridley everything about him and Chance's relationship without Chane's prior knowledge or consent. They're friends again. Whoo.

Let's just breeze past this. Chance and he make up and make out. The usual. Then, it flashes to David backstage at a Darkhearts concert, and Chance calls him up front to play the song they wrote. No context as to how he got there, by the way. Then, Chance kisses David in front of the audience. The End. Curtains closed.

1,703 words. I regret everything.

So, my thoughts? David Holcum is a horrible character and so is Ridley McNeill. Chance was the only reason I kept reading this godforsaken book. He actually was a good person and felt like maybe he could've been an actual teenager, but David was cringe and so was every. Single. Other. Character.

Obviously, out of the extensive list of people credited with working on this book, none of them were queer teenagers. The vague fatphobic remarks made towards David throughout the book weren't covered further, and this just felt like another plot point abandoned. You can only have a few plot points that you barely go into before it becomes all over the place, and this book is teetering on that line.

I know this is his first-ever queer YA novel, but it was so bad. David isn't a loveable character, and I would've preferred Chance as the MC. David is annoying and selfish throughout the entire book, and it's clear he gets that from his parents (who are divorced).

If there is ever a second book to this, (which I honestly hope there is, I'd love to see this expanded) I hope Sutter consults actual queer teens like David and Chance. They didn't really feel like teenagers throughout the book, and it felt less "coming of age" than I wanted it to be.

If James Sutter reads this, I'm sorry. The baseline is, your book is okay. The plot is good, the base idea is good, but the characters are shit. David is shit. I hate him. Sorry, that'll be the last of my hatred.

Thanks for reading this monster-incduced mess I wrote in one sitting. Much appreciated.

#darkhearts #bookposting #book review #???#idk how to tag anymore #so tired

6 notes · View notes

the-mountain-flower · 3 months

Text

I came up with smn cool that probably only matters to me but IDC imma share it anyway bc I think it's cool

So most, if not all, reading this will know about the "many people still upset that Pluto is categorized as a dwarf planet when it used to be labeled as a planet" thing. I've got no qualms either way, whether or not it's a planet doesn't affect me. But my ND brain started connecting the harmless "Pluto is a planet fuck you" with the harmful science-denial running rampant rn.

Obviously that's bullshit. No way in hell is the categorization of astral bodies and the emotions people have with it, on the same level as shit like "vaccines are bad" etc. So even tho it's technically a small thing, the fact that my brain started connecting them was irking me, so I thought of ways to get around that.

What I came up with is kinda similar yet opposite to the original idea: "dwarf planet" still has the word "planet" in it.

We still categorize the eight larger planets into the inner rocky ones, and the outer gas giants. This is because even though they are all in the same "large masses orbiting the sun maybe with moons", the two types are different enough to warrant being in separate categories. I figured that "dwarf planets" could be considered another one of those categories, big enough to be on the list of major orbital bodies, while significantly smaller than the ones before the Asteroid Belt or gas giants (according to NASA, specifically ones that weren't able to "clear their orbit of debris" which is where the size thing comes in bc gravity).

Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris are in a category of their own that acknowledge their individuality from all other objects. Like coming out as queer, Pluto (and Ceres apparently) was thought to be one thing, then realized to be another. (This is NOT saying "Pluto is a planet fuck you" is equal to bigotry either, one is harmless and the other is harmful. I'm not accusing anyone in the first category of being just as bad, it's not true. It's also of a separate enough subject that my brain doesn't have a hard time keeping them separate, so it's not too counterproductive to my point.)

So both can be true, because Pluto IS a planet, just the same type of planet as Eris, Makemake, Ceres, and Haumea.

Is that completely scientifically founded? Technically no, dwarf planets don't actually meet the criteria of an official planet. But it works bc "planet" is still in the name, and there's a difference between general knowledge of smn and the official technicalities, and the official technicalities are still enough for this one.

Is it just a different way of anthropomorphizing the planets? Yeah.

Does it work? Yup. So long as I'm not accidentally associating something Not Bad with something Bad and it's not blatantly untrue, I'm good with it.

But yeah, I thought it was creative and so figured I'd share. 🤷‍♀️❤️

#pluto #astronomy #dwarf planet #planet pluto #neurodivergent thinking #neurodivergent #neurospicy #also learned I've been pronouncing “makemake” in my head wrong this whole time bc I'd never heard it outloud before #I'm a fantasy & sci-fi reader so I'm used to that feeling except this is a real-world name my English-speaking ass just didn't know #and now I know

6 notes · View notes

dumbdomb · 3 months

Note

I also feel maybe you should try and clarify a bit more what you mean on your pinned post

(Not hate)

can you suggest how i could better clarify the beginning portion of my pinned, in a way that would satisfy appropriately and accurately? i've rewritten my pinned many times... it feels unfair to be constantly held to such a higher standard than anyone else around here. people are always trying to make me responsible for their own ignorance or unwillingness to just ask for me to clarify. i cannot simply say "cis men dni" or "wlw dni" bc neither are applicable to me, as a queer androgynous person. i am followed by and mutuals with lesbians, tfems, and other wlw aligned or sapphic people. this has never been an issue, no one has ever inquired about this, even in a vague or general sense. this is also from my pinned...

i am ok with cis, trans, intersex, and nonbinary people interacting with my blog. i'm ok with straight, gay, and queer people. allo, aro, and ace people are welcome here. this is all over my blog and consistently how i've posted here. but i have to create boundaries when people only see me as a woman, or a man. i have to create these boundaries when straight men only interact with my original images. i have to take a stance on certain kinks when they are the only ones continuously disregarding my boundaries and forcing their kinks on me. i have talked about all of this many times and at great length.

i've been told not to, or how to, tag my posts. what labels to use or not use. telling me not to censor tags, when they don't understand how the tagging system on here works. telling me not to post at all. sending hate and ignoring any response i've given to it in the past. most people are looking to find fault with me for some reason that actually has nothing to do with me, and is really about what lies in their own heart. i don't send hate to anyone, i discourage people from ever sending hate of any kind to anyone for any reason whatsoever. yet some people still come and send me hate, try to control my blog...

whatever happened to sending a nicely worded message, if you wanted clarification, and if not- blocking and closing the page without making an issue and escalating how you speak with someone you've already decided to dislike? i don't appreciate people trying to start discourse or arguments with me, i'm here to be friendly and have a nice time with people who like similar things. if you don't like me or my blog, that's ok, then simply move on with your day.

all i did was reblog a rather tame post, using specifically sapphic tags... "stone top" and "pillow princess" and i didn't try to contact this person or anything else. she asked why i had reblogged her post, and i cleared up the confusion. but she was still upset with me, asking me to delete the post from my blog and to block her- which i have done.

#anonymous #answered #midnightrosescandy

2 notes · View notes

therivergirl · 2 years

Text

I doubt it will be addressed in the show, especially with how little time there is, but can we talk about how jarring it would be for queer characters from The Boiling Isles to suddenly be in the human realm?

Like, I know that Dana said there is no queerphobia in the Boiling Isles, that much is even obvious from what we see on screen. But I'm not sure if she said that about the human realm of TOH. So, considering that other forms of prejudice exist, such as the belief that magic and witchcraft are evil, I'm going to assume that queerphobia exists as well.

So, can you imagine Luz taking Amity on a date? And they are walking down the street and are very obviously together, as the two are not subtle, and suddenly someone tosses an insult at them and Amity doesn't know what it means but she can see Luz's reaction.

Luz first flinches, then she grips Amity's hand tighter, but then, she looks at her, and she looks almost sad and lets her hand go.

And since Luz was at the Isles for a while she put it off her mind that, oh yeah, homophobia is a thing. Because, at the isles, she and Amity could be free. Nobody ever questioned "Wait, you're dating a girl???" Nobody questioned that Eda liked Raine, who is non-binary, nobody questioned that Raine is non-binary!

And now she is back home and someone is calling her a slur. So she takes her hand from Amity's and tells her that they should go home and Amity is a bit hurt because she thinks Luz is ashamed to be seen with her for some reason, she is unsure why. Is it her hair? Is she too different? Are her ears showing?

She asks Luz but Luz insists they should just get home before she explains. And when they do get home, Camila notices that both are upset, and Luz goes to grab some hot chocolate and to settle her thoughts and Camila asks Amity what happened. Amity explains that everything was fine, but then some kids called them names. She repeats the words and Camila frowns and wonders how she should explain this. Then Luz appears with hot chocolate and all three go to the living room.

Luz apologizes if she made Amity worry, she makes it absolutely clear that she is NOT ashamed to be seen with Amity.

And at first, she wanted to push through, pay the jerks no mind, that is why she tightened her grip on Amity's hand. It sucks, being around those guys, it's hurtful and it brings out some not-so-nice memories, but she knows how to deal with it.

But she didn't want Amity facing those so she let go of her hand but then got caught up in her own head and didn't know how to explain everything properly right away. She apologizes for making Amity worry, and Amity says that it's fine, but she still doesn't get what those words mean, and what exactly Luz wanted to protect her from.

And then Camila and Luz explain queerphobia, at this point the rest of the kids have gathered as well, and they are all utterly disgusted by the concept. Luz comments how she is lucky to have a mum like Camila who is supportive and Camila comments how she doesn't find being supportive of her bi daughter to be some grand gesture, that's just how things should be.

And, while she does still find the stories of the Boiling Isles terrifying, she is delighted to hear that there, queerphobia is not a thing at all.

In the end Amity and Luz do the "regular date attempt number two", holding hands proudly, as Luz is kinda used to the jerks and Amity decided that, hey, she and Luz faced her parents, Terra Snapdragon and Belos together, they can deal with a few human teen jerks.

#the owl house #lumity #luz noceda #amity blight #camila noceda #supportive camila noceda #mentions of queerphobia #lgbt #river rambles

90 notes · View notes

vintage-bentley · 9 months

Note

If David were giving "wait and see" style answers I'd have a bit more hope but he was talking to the Radio Times which is a reputable publication in the UK so I don't feel like he'd outright lie to them about the nature of Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship.

To be honest, both he and Michael have been pretty clear on this being a ~secret background story~ or whatever, and have repeatedly said it's up for interpretation, and I'm worried everybody's doing another Johnlock where they ignore what the people involved are saying and have convinced themselves they're getting confirmation that will never come. The difference is this would be even WORSE because of the marketing campaign for season 2 and Neil's baity comments.

I honestly don't think Neil would be affected by this either because the second anybody expresses disappointment the asexuals in fandom are going to make it all about them and about how society ignores and invalidates their kind of love etc. I think he'll be successfully shielded. There will be pissed off people (especially olds like me who were book fans first and have lived through this shit a billion times) and I'm sure a huge part of the fandom will be quietly seething but we simply won't be allowed to call it bait because "Neil has always said it's a love story and therefore canon uwu" (even if it's plausibly deniable to homophobes and eludes the casual viewer 🙄).

I also think it's very telling that Neil only drew attention to the fake spoilers circulating when a post appeared saying the season was "500% gay" and that Az and Crowley had many romantic scenes. He has also said that while the marketing dept at Amazon clearly love the show he would've advised them to do things differently were he not on strike.

I know we've all been interpreting David and Michael's tight-lipped squirming when asked about a romantic subplot as an attempt not the give EVERYthing away, but it could also be that they know they're not going to deliver what the audience wants (including, apparently, every single interviewer on press day lol) so have been ordered not to say anything that sets themselves up.

IF all of this does turn out to be bait I am going to become a fic writer just to spite Neil lol. Trust I will be writing the smuttiest fic and finding the nastiest NSFW Ineffable Husbands art imaginable and it will be gay, gay, GAY 😂

I still HOPE we're getting what we want because I'm an optimistic fool. I'm just not sure it's guaranteed in the way the fandom thinks it is.

(btw if this doesn't go through anonymously please message me rather than publishing? Unfortunately I have co-workers and real life friends following me on my main 😬)

Sorry anon I couldn’t help but publish these together, it’s very funny to me 😂

Now, I know you’ve done a complete turnaround, but I do see where you were coming from with your first ask. It’s fun to imagine that the squirmy tight-lipped attitude is them doing their best not to spoil…but it’s sadly true that it could also be them feeling like they’re walking in a minefield, knowing that fans are anticipating something they didn’t deliver.

And I agree with you about fan reception to Neil. Like I’ve said before, spicy straights thinking they can call themselves “queer” has been absolutely disastrous to our ability to talk about queerbaiting. Because that term is really supposed to mean gaybaiting. It refers to the specific trend of shows teasing a gay relationship to get viewers hooked, but never taking it anywhere to ensure they don’t loose the viewership of homophobes. But now since everyone and their mother calls themselves “queer”, they seem to think the term queerbaiting applies to them, too. Which has led us to the point where people say “actually this show isn’t queerbaiting, because they don’t show physical affection which is aro/ace representation! Not everything has to be gay!” (In other words, “this show is gaybaiting but I’m happy about that so you can’t get upset about it”).

So, even if the show ends up being perfect textbook queerbait…we can’t say that, because of how the term has been appropriated. And we’ll have to deal with spicy straights whining about how they’re oppressed by gays wanting representation.

But as I’ve said before, I’m very optimistic about it not being bait! Let’s hope we’re right!

#asks #anon

4 notes · View notes

arborescreens · 6 months

Text

====== ARBOR | 21+ | HE/BUN ======

serial enjoyer of media, critical of myself for the media i enjoy.

queer freak | he/him, bun/bunny pronouns. don't use the neos for me if they upset you!

taken since 7/7/2019

icon: by me header: by me

socials @ arborescreens: youtube, toyhou.se

art tag: #artbor text posts/originals: #arbabble original character talks: #arbocs minecraft original content: #arborcrafted 18+/suggestive content: #nsft

important posts:

oc explantion / lore / references

i'm here to mainly talk about my ocs, post my art, and try to enjoy the content that appeals to me!

i ramble on in my tags more often than not, so i'm sorry in advance if you open any "show mores" on my tags.

uses a lot of affectionate wording, as well as emoticons and emojis. i try to be very clear with the intent of my speech, but will use tone indicators when i feel as though it can be confusing!

i make a lot of ocs inspired by the media i enjoy, though i am not trying to "remake" any 'canon' characters, nor steal them. my ocs are created from a place of adoration, and are not supposed to be a stand in or replacement for the media that they hail from.

i have adhd and therefore am on a constant whirlwind of things i enjoy! the higher on the list, the more prominent my enjoyment of that particular thing is.

interests below the cut:

my friends' ocs

my own ocs

monkey island series

bungou stray dogs

minecraft (mcyt: hermitcraft, life series)

soul eater

homestuck

poetry

some musicals (bmc, heathers, sweeney todd, chicago, rocky horror picture show)

all iterations of alice in wonderland

pokemon

zelda franchise

danny phantom

rwby

kingdom hearts

professor layton

animal crossing

a lot of other things! oops!

#tags to click for quick navigation:#artbor #arbabble #arbocs #arborcrafted

2 notes · View notes

thebreakfastgenie · 9 months

Note

I think the reason people are having such a hard time with your "the 'queer is a slur' people were right" post twofold.

Firstly, it's because you're framing your argument around a fundamentally different argument than they are, but using the exact same people do it.

Your point is, if I've understood it correctly, "Queer is a word that has been used to hurt me and those like me, and I feel uncomfortable and upset that people deny this history and shame those who still feel that discomfort." This is, obviously, totally fair. From this perspective, the people who insist on Queer being a slur make perfect sense, and denying that is hurtful.

But, when the original post just says "the 'queer is a slur' people were right", people will read that from the context they are coming from. Specifically, the context of people telling them to not use Queer to self-identify, using it's history as a slur as a rhetorical tactic to shame deviance. You added more nuance in your follow up reblog, and in subsequent posts, but either way, that interpretation of your original post is just as fair. People who say "Queer is a slur" for the reasons you are agreeing with, and people who say "Queer is a slur" for the reasons these people have experienced both exist, and so a post like that is bound to create confusion.

Secondly, and this is not in any way your fault, but there is an instinct on the internet, particularly in progressive spheres, to assume that every problem a person has demands action. Obviously you were hoping for some degree of action (people having more sympathy for people uncomfortable with the word Queer), but people are very quick to believe that the action they need to take is to excise the problematic elements from themselves, which in this case would have been to stop using Queer as a self identifier. Clearly not your goal, it's just how people have become conditioned to react to things like this.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that it's not my fault.

I'm not going to refrain from posting about my personal feelings on my personal blog, nor am I responsible for what other people choose to read into it. I agree that people take every problem as a call to action, but it's not an acceptable solution to tell people not to talk about their problems and it's not my responsibility to anticipate people trying "solve" my "problem" by doing something I did not ask them to do.

I added the reblog within minutes of making the original post. Maybe some people saw the original on their dash even after that, and did not click on the notes, but reacting by sending me anon hate was not reasonable.

I'm just... not sure what I'm supposed to do with people bringing their own context. Most of the hate has come after I made my context clear. And it's not like "this word has been used to hurt me, and I'm uncomfortable with it" is a fringe perspective in this discourse. So even if people were reacting from a place of past hurt, they were still making assumptions about me and sending me hate on that basis.

Also just so we're clear, I don't personally feel hurt by the word queer. I no longer identify with it, but it doesn't especially bother me. I empathize with people who grew up with "smear the queer" and being called a queer by homophobes, only for it to become unavoidable, because I've now seen the nastiest slur of my generation become the internet's favorite word. I do think the conversation around queer is a bit more complicated, because it does serve functions outside of being a slur, and also because using it as an adjective rather than a noun can change the connotation ("gay" is similar, though no one really uses "the gays" seriously anymore).

4 notes · View notes