Avatar

Glory to the Resistance

@hussyknee / hussyknee.tumblr.com

Queer disabled lady from South Asia. Social Anarchist. Decolonize or die. Batfamily sideblog here. I swear a lot, follow at own risk IF you are over 14. If I haven't answered your ask it's because I'm too ADHD to function. DNI: suicide baiters, antis/fandom police, oppression olympians, radfems, zionists, tankies, blue-no-matter-who liberals.
Avatar

You know what? Destroy the "people in rural areas are all ignorant conservatives" stereotype and start mocking the "trad"/anti-feminist/neonazi people that are obsessed with rural areas despite having never been to one

I'm absolutely laughing my ass off at all these "Traditional Femininity" blogs that post nothing but aesthetic photos of supposed "Rural Life"

Lady this is a skinny influencer in a frilly white dress that's never had dirt on it, with her hair in professionally-done beachy waves, doing a photoshoot in a field using a basket of strawberries bought at walmart as a prop.

If you saw an actual woman farmer you would think you were seeing the Masculinization Of Women By The Degenerate Left

Avatar
beowulf22121

Can confirm, went to school with farm folk. The wrestling team was afraid of the 4H and Future Farmers of America girls.

I live in a no-stoplight-no-starbucks-no-fast-food town in the backwoods of Virginia, and I have seen a toothless redneck at the gas station go off on someone for being a dick about a trans woman, telling him that if he didn't want to show some basic manners, he should move up north.

good time to remember that the Southern U.S. population is significantly more progressive and ethnically diverse than you've been taught to believe.

southern states are gerrymandered to hell--specifically to prevent the majority from overthrowing the conservative political chokehold. this is by design and a direct inheritance of the civil war (to keep former slaves and their descendants as politically disenfranchised as possible). Southern politics do not reflect southern reality. And neither do media portrayals. there is a reason the media wants you to think of the south as white, conservative, poor, and uneducated: to keep southern progressives isolated. to alienate northern liberals from disenfranchised southerners (especially southerners of color).

it's just another divide-and-conquer strategy. because that's what conservatives are good at--controlling the narrative in order to rewrite history and sow discord between groups that should be helping each other. Because unity is powerful, and it makes us dangerous.

tl;dr the south has always been more liberal than you think, it's the decades of voter suppression & systematic disenfranchisement controlling the narrative. (and yes this extends to gender and queer issues too)

Avatar
Intimate Authoritarianism: The Ideology of Abuse Lee Shevek 10 min read Jan 11 For far too long have radical communities and their discourses treated domestic violence and abuse as external from the considerations of revolutionary struggle. Abuse is seen as simply an interpersonal issue, springing from individual pathology which we must address by correcting certain behaviors and teaching better communication skills. The intervention tools of choice are frequently limited to restorative or transformative justice practices, with the ultimate aim of protecting and maintaining the abuser’s place in the community, often at the cost of survivor safety, participation, and empowerment. There is a fear that ousting abusers and challenging them as adversaries to revolutionary struggle rather than as wayward members of it will ultimately weaken us collectively, because, after all, they are still our comrades.
What we fail to see, within this framework, is that abuse is not individual pathology. Abuse is not an unfortunate mistake. Abuse is the form that systematic oppression takes on an interpersonal level. It is an agent of patriarchy, ableism, capitalism, and white supremacy. It is intimate authoritarianism, and must be resisted just as strongly as we endeavor to challenge authoritarianism on a structural level. Until we do so, the logic of authoritarianism will continue to run rampant within our movements, alienate the most vulnerable among us, and weaken our ability to fight authoritarianism on a larger scale. What is Intimate Authoritarianism? Put simply: intimate authoritarianism is the logic of authoritarianism — the enforcement or advocacy of obedience to authority at the expense of autonomy — applied on an interpersonal level. It is the belief that there are certain people in one’s life that it is acceptable (and often encouraged) to harm in order gain power and control over them. While all abusers subscribe to and act within the values of intimate authoritarianism, they are less aberrations from the common belief system than they are people who take mainstream messages about love, power, relationships, parenthood, and the family — that many people to varying degrees accept as true — to their logical conclusions. Intimate authoritarianism as an ideology proliferates throughout our entire society in much the same way that other forms of authoritarianism do, even though not everyone capitalizes on its values in the same way.
About romantic love we are taught that we will receive a romantic partner who can and should fulfill our every need and fantasy, and that it is acceptable to do whatever necessary to find and bind that person to us so that they can serve as the fulfiller of our every wish. We are taught that in pursuance of that person, it is acceptable to stalk, threaten, coerce, manipulate, and harass, so long as it is, in name at least, done “for love.” We are taught that jealousy and possessive behavior is an important expression of our love. We are taught that when the people close to us do not fill their role as wish-fulfillers well enough that we are justified in responding to their perceived failure with punishment and manipulation until they submit to our demands to our satisfaction. We are taught to turn interpersonal connections into private property relations, and there is a host of ready-made justifications at our disposal to excuse any number of abusive acts so long as they are done in service of keeping our “property” under our control, whether they are a romantic partner, a child, an elderly parent, or even a close friend.
By virtue of our closeness to someone, the kind of relationship we have with them, many of us are taught and come to believe that we are granted some kind of authority over them, and common social practices within our communities as well as state institutions like that of marriage and the family affirm that authority.
Avatar

I think, at the very least in online queer/feminist aligned spaces, there's a pressure for women to join in on jokes about hating men and men being trash, and this is especially strong for trans women (of all kinds).

both because you want to embrace your womanhood and to be One Of The Girls, and because there's a stronger pressure to prove that you aren't one of The Guys and you agree with what these cool women say about men. trashing men is part of the bonding process so to connect with your womanhood you should join in on that and whatever else gets popular as Girl Culture (like talking abt how womanhood is suffering, which surprise surprise is connected to radfeminism in the same way hating men is)

ik i've felt like this (which puts me in a tense position as a multigender woman who's also a man) and it's mentioned in this classic article as well. for a lot of people, hating on men is part of being a woman, and the people who push this the hardest are very often radfems because it encourages an "us vs them, good vs bad, women have to stand as a class against men as a class" perspective. and this is often very enticing to women who have felt disconnected from their womanhood and community w other women (namely trans women & cis women who have been disconnected from their womanhood)

Avatar
hussyknee

(Alt text included)

Your tags are important and relatable.

Avatar
reblogged

The reason why I have a problem with typically radfems + “gender criticals” talking about the “3rd gender” in not white cultures and them simply labeling the genders as misogynistic-caused (aka them implying that the gender is for women) and or homophobia-caused (aka them implying that the gender is for men) is that they truly do not understand that you cannot put western labels on non-western concepts bc it’s just mislabeling at best and colonialism at worst.

There are simply concepts that cannot exist in western colonialism and that includes genders outside of man or woman. These genders that existed before western colonialism cannot be applied to the binary or can even be called non-binary as the western man-woman gender binary SIMPLY DIDN’T EXIST FOR THE CULTURE AT THE TIME.

TLDR: Stop applying the western man-woman gender binary to cultural genders. Just stop. Decolonize while you’re ahead.

Avatar
reblogged

You know when some asshole puts too many animals in an unsuitable enclosure and they get scared and start hurting each other? That's what queer community spaces on the Internet are like.

Now imagine if u will that a chicken capable of complex thought (terrifying, I know) was stuck in a dirty, overcrowded coop and a pecking party started, and this chicken thought to itself "If I do the best job of viciously dismembering the other chickens, maybe the farmer will spare me from the stew pot," you'd think that was fucking stupid, wouldn't you? Right?

Avatar
hussyknee

That's the most evocative way I've seen respectability politics described.

Avatar
Avatar
kidrat

literally who CARES if straight cis men are wearing skirts for ‘clout’!!! I want to live in a world where being gnc is desirable to them rather than one where they make bigoted jokes about it. it’s GOOD that people with the privilege to do so are normalising gender non conformity and i dont give a shit if they have deliberate political intentions or if they’re just having fun you guys are all so annoying

we could be using the tiktok boys to kickstart a movement around men wearing skirts that would benefit gnc and trans people but you guys want ideological purity before u want results

Avatar
animamosaic

When I was in middle school, way back in 1994, we had An Incident. A few popular boys dared each other to wear skirts to school on Monday. To, in their own words, “See what it was like to wear skirts, lol. Why shouldn’t we?”. It wasn’t anything fancy, they just pulled some long hippie skirts over their jeans in the bathroom and giggled their way to class.

I want to go back a bit here. It was 1994. There were no out gay people anywhere near our school. Certainly no trans people. A few celebrities on TV, sure, but mostly in jokes. And not everyone had access to MTV or cable. The internet didn’t exist for us. Only a few kids had ever even heard of Rocky Horror Picture Show, which would be my first brush with gender fuckery that came close to positive rep in the media. Our city and state had a measure on the ballot almost every year since the mid eighties attempting to criminalize even mentioning the word gay. AIDs was still a looming specter over everything. It was dangerous to be seen as gay or gender nonconforming.

So these boys. They weren’t trying to make a statement. They weren’t even making a gay joke. They just thought it wold be silly to wear skirts. They wanted to see what it felt like. They were experimenting. The teachers flipped out. The boys wear marched into the principle’s office, their parents called, they were sent home for the day, a school announcement was made about inappropriate clothing and being lewd in school. Again, long loose skirts over pants. “Skirts aren’t for you. It’s wrong for boys to wear skirts. Stay in your straight boy box”. In response we, the students, responded with “Fuck the police!”.

2 Days later about 2/3 of boys showed up in skirts, jewelry, and makeup. No girls wore skirts, makeup, or jewelry. Some girls drew mustaches and wore suits. It began as just a anti-authoritarian response to what we saw as a ridiculous over reaction to boys in skirts, but the more we thought about it the more upset we got. Why couldn’t they wear skirts any time they wanted??? Why shouldn’t they paint their nails??? What if they did it all the time??? Yeah maybe some of them did like other boys, so what??? Maybe some of the girls in school never wanted to wear skirts or makeup, didn’t like their boobs, and/or didn’t like boys??? MAYBE IT WAS ALL BULLSHIT

In about a week a large number of us had become queer advocates without even knowing what that was. And in the face of that many kids, the school didn’t know what to do. Send us all home? We had several days of no free periods allowed, no recess time, lunch was for eating and quiet contemplation. Parents were called and warnings mailed that school dress codes were being updated. Unfortunately for school policy enough parents also thought that enforcing the gender binary was ridiculous that meetings had to be held. And some of the wealthier parents rolled up with lawyers ready to argue that Timmy had every right to wear a long skirt, and you couldn’t suspend Alice because she’d buzzed her hair on Thursday and started wearing mens suit pants and jackets. So it was dropped mostly. Skirts couldn’t be above the knee, no spaghetti straps, no drawing on your face - regardless of gender. But the air had changed.

Most kids went back to wearing whatever they had before. But, several boys continued painting their nails, grew out their hair, and occasionally wore skirts. Several girls chopped their hair off and wore “boys” clothing. One person, and this was literally unheard of, asked their friends to stop calling them Bridgett and call them Brandon. And they did. I lost track of most of the students, this town isn’t that small, but I know some of them came out as queer later in life. I can’t say that incident was a turning point for them, but it was for me.

It started as boys being silly. But at least 2 of those initial boys ended up wearing skirts and makeup regularly after that well into high school, and not as a joke. If they’d been shouted down? If other kids hadn’t said, “You know what? Good for you!” I hope they still would have been able to come out, but it probably wouldn’t have been as easy.

And yes, it did start as a joke. But the response is what matters here. It wasn’t treated as a joke. It was met with anger. Then acceptance. And it made a positive difference.

So, I see people upset that “straight cis” people aren’t wearing clothes correctly and… Y'all. I just see another instance of some kids playing with ideas and experimenting, pushing the boundaries. And being met with anger. And told to get back in their gender appropriate box.

“Well well well what if they mean it as a joke???” Tell them they look good and should wear skirts more often, if they want to. Tell them that yellow isn’t their color, but they’d look great in green. Tell them that if they get thigh chaffing to try bike shorts underneath. If you can’t handle that, don’t say anything. Block them and move on. If they’re assholes, block them and move on. But don’t tell them they can’t wear clothing because they haven’t labeled themselves correctly.

You can’t say you support queer rights and gender nonconformity and then get pissy when people don’t wear pants/skirts in narrow ways you like.

Stop trying to validate yourself by pushing down other people.

(I’m using pronouns for people that were used when I last knew them, since I have no way of knowing if they’ve changed)

EDIT: I do know this situation is specific. It wouldn’t have happened the same at some of the other schools in town. Families trended more liberal, and the popular kids were mostly wealthier. So, we all had adults saying, “gays aren’t evil but also not encouraged, but you can’t say you don’t encourage them”. The parental support was mostly of a “don’t tell my kid what to do” liberal posturing. Very few of the parents actually supported their kid being queer at the time. Brandon changing their name was a secret. We, the students radicalized ourselves on accident, but no one actually came out until years later. Our supporting each other to wear whatever we wanted, joke or not, was influential in coming out though. (my parents basically asked if I wanted to buy a suit to wear to school, also did I want to form a picket line. I did not, but appreciated the idea. Mom told one of the boys he looked very pretty when he wore a dress to graduation. Which was another Incident, and also very funny because they couldn’t punish him at all by then)

Avatar
Avatar
nothorses

I'm getting a little bit tired of the people trying to paint the conversation around "transandrophobia" as some kind of "both sides" issue, like what's happening here is just a political disagreement between one side who's telling the truth about being victimized and one side who's lying to further ulterior motives, and nobody else can figure out who's telling the truth (":(")

You are not confused wayward children caught between two potential liars, incapable of thinking for yourselves, and forced to sit on your hands and wait until someone or something comes along to tell you what to think.

You cannot solve this cute little math equation you've invented by deciding that The Most Victim Must Always Be Believed, picking out your victim of choice, and handing them victory by default.

Look at me. Listen to me. Look me in the fucking eyes.

I am not here to argue about a word. I am not here to claim victory. I am not presenting a "side". I am not a variable in a math equation.

I am talking about my personal experiences as a trans man. I am giving a platform to other people's similar personal experiences. And I am not here to argue with you about whether those things happened or not- they did. They happened.

If you don't believe me when I say that, if you need to evaluate my level of oppression against other people's levels of oppression to decide whether my reality is real or not, and if you need to rely on half-baked repurposed radfem theory from 40 years ago to figure out whether trans people are lying to you about their lived experiences, you are, frankly, not ready to engage in this conversation.

I am using a word as a tool to describe my experiences. I do not care if you want to use it, too. That's not what the conversation is about.

The things the word describes are real. They happen. Some of them have happened to me, and all of them have happened to others like me.

Put on your big kid pants and engage in the actual conversation here:

Do you believe transmascs when we say we have experienced oppression? Do you believe us when we say we have faced violence? Do you believe us when we say we're struggling and need help?

If so, it shouldn't matter what word is being used. You should want to help us.

And if you're spending more time hemming and hawing about the word than you are actually giving a shit about the experiences we're describing and the help we're asking for, well. It's time to own up to the fact that you're not really interested in figuring out which trans person is a hapless victim and which trans person is an evil conniving liar.

You don't give a shit, and you want an excuse to continue not giving a shit.

Avatar
Avatar
hussyknee

I love how they left out the part about them giving out the lesbian couple’s personal information to send them death threats, running them out of their home, and encouraging other fundies to petition to have their children taken away. **examines fingernails**

Also the fact that they raised half million dollars from other raging homophobes to fund this bigotry. I hope the dickholes lose the shirts off their backs and have to live out of a van. But that’s too much to hope for.

I just wanna add that the lesbian couple were getting married because their mutual friend had just died of cancer and they were adopting her two daughters… and that the death threats were so bad that they had to quit their jobs and move. it’s never just about a cake. it’s about the precedent you set when you allow ppl to discriminate. it’s about all the disgusting bigots that crawl out of the woodwork when they feel like they have the right to hate.

If y'all still under the impression that justice was served, allow me to disillusion you. I made this update (with sources and links) back when this post took off, but it wasn't noticed. Apparently these ass clowns pestered the Supreme Court into making the Oregon Appeals court hear the case again. This poor family is still not left in peace.

Please reblog the shit out of this. I've seen this post pop up from everywhere from Reddit to Insta and die a little every time I see it that people think the bakers got what they deserved.

Avatar

This is the article that stopped me in my tracks from becoming the kind of exclusionist radfem quasi-terf Tumblr 2015 was a breeding ground for. Intersectional spaces are very different now (well, to cis feminists. Bigots never leave their targets alone) but this kind of toxic "women are inherently amazing, men are inferior" Dworkinism was the default even among intersectional feminists until recently, even though most of them would have defended trans rights and not seen themselves as exclusionary.

The exclusions of trans and nonbinary folk, aces and aros and bisexuals, of sex workers, of sex negativity, the erasure of WoC, poor and disabled women, all come the same underpinnings of radical feminism. It is biologically essentialist, rooted in a fixed identity, inherently classist and white supremacist, built on the fragility and fears of white womanhood. More than anything, it runs on the binary of idealisation and demonization, both of which are dehumanizing and oppressive.

It isn't enough to be against these things; you have to interrogate every form of prejudice and bias you hold to see where you are being reductive, where you are being binarist, and where your exclusions are arbitrary, and most of all, whether they are compassionate and self-aware. "Stay in your lane" doesn't mean herd people out of yours, it means to keep in mind that our perspectives are limited to our own experiences and to listen and learn from other people and learn when to defer to them.

Next time you think anything along the lines of "women are inherently-", stop yourself in your tracks and ask whether the idea you're forming is essentialist, reduces people to their gender and sexuality, and assumes a universality of experience among people you don't know.

Avatar
Avatar
twinsfawn

run faster then bitch

Avatar
ti0mumu
Image
Avatar
aeide-thea

[text in image: #if u read the article #she hasn't even lost yet #she just assumes people she struggled against #are trans #like #she literally just invents hordes of trans students competing in women's sports]

the tags above actually aren’t true, and i think we can, and should, dispute this argument without misrepresenting it: the op-ed in question states that chelsea mitchell “lost four women’s state championship titles, two all-new england awards, and numerous other spots on the podium to transgender runners,” and “was bumped to third place in the 55-meter dash in 2019, behind two transgender runners,” although i have to say i find the choice of verb there pretty fascinating—‘was bumped,’ mitchell writes, as though she were a royal who’d been demoted from the position she believed to be her birthright, and not merely a runner who hadn’t run fast enough that day to earn it.

really, i think a more salient point here is one i’ve seen others make before, which is that ultimately, biological advantages are the name of the athletic game—as someone who’s 5′6″, i was never going to have the mechanical advantage of rowers who were 5′9″, 5′11″, even 6′ in some cases. that’s just physics! should i have turned around and said, the women outperforming me don't count as women, they're too tall and i’m going to sue to have them excluded from competing with me on that basis? what a gross, pathetic move that would have been.

as one of the trans girls who beat mitchell in that 2019 race, andraya yearwood, observed at the time: “one high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” she said. “one sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster.” there are an enormous number of factors that shape athletic performance, and very few of them correlate directly to so-called ‘biological sex’—i’m AFAB, and plenty of cis men are shorter or slighter than i am, including classmates i had in high school.

but if we’re talking about testosterone, which tends to be at the heart of athletic gatekeeping: both yearwood and terry miller (the other trans girl mitchell is subtweeting) had started HRT before ever lining up against cis girls, and had, according to court documentation submitted by the ACLU, “circulating hormones... comparable to the hormone levels of non-transgender girls.” what’s more, as the ACLU motion further specifies, neither yearwood nor miller were undefeated in their track careers, nor did either have dominant race times among high school girls nationally—in fact, mitchell herself beat both yearwood and miller at the connecticut state championship in 2020! so clearly the supposedly-insurmountable advantage enjoyed by transfeminine athletes is in fact wholly surmountable, and arguments to the contrary nothing but petulant, entitled prejudice.

but enough of all this—let’s end on a sweeter note. here are miller and yearwood in 2019, at an awards ceremony honoring them for their courage:

much love to them. <3

Avatar
orevet

#feels not irrelevant that both of these girls are also black

^^^^^

Avatar
hussyknee

I also want to add that cis black female athletes are also subjected to this same scrutiny of "unfair androgen advantage" again and again, e.g Simone Biles, Serena Williams, Surya Bonaly and especially in the case of Castor Semenya, who the IAA subjected to "sex testing" and finally revising the regulations until she didn't meet them and declaring her "biologically male". The white female fragility that strives to remove the womanhood of black women via their "mutant" rhetoric and the "predator" fearmongering of white radical feminism that drives transmisogyny are extremely similar, twin oppressive narratives (which means black trans women are defeminized and dehumanized worst of all).

Avatar
reblogged

the bisexual woman experience is have a period of questioning your sexuality not because you’re trying to figure out if you find girls attractive but because you assume everyone else also wants to date girls so it’s not compelling data

Avatar
hussyknee

That’s what happens when society conditions us to see women as passive receptacles of desire.

what a weird and creepy comment to put on my post about a bisexual woman’s intrinsic love of girls

anyway being attracted to women is good actually and a wonderful day to everyone who thinks girls are cute because they’re right

I…didn’t mean it to be weird and creepy?

I thought the reason bi girls think everyone likes girls at first is because society caters to the straight male gaze, which means everything soft/pretty/sexy/alluring is embodied and personified by women, so like of course you’re attracted to women, everyone is! So you can’t really see past the cultural narrative unless you talk to a straight girl and realize they don’t feel that way. By the same token, society also frames men as the sole agents of desire, which is why many women and AFAB people, even those with same sex attraction, tend to feel alienated from our own sexuality. Obviously it varies on an individual level though.

Re: your tags, I’m not talking about dehumanization so much as “the feminine mystique” being built up so much in everything from folktales to modern media. How was I supposed to know the smell of a girl’s shampoo and red lipstick wouldn’t give everyone butterflies when I’ve read about it my whole life?

I don’t see how that’s insulting to bi women but my apologies if it was derailing, OP. Wasn’t my intent.

Hm I see what you tried to say here, but it doesn’t match up

It seems like what you meant was along the lines “this is what happens when society treats women as objects of desire because when media acts like women are inherently desirable it can be hard for you to figure out that not literally everyone desires women”

The problem with using “passive receptacles for desire” when talking about attraction is that phrasing is really meant for behavior. Like typically a man having a crush on a specific girl and thinking his interest is all that’s needed for him to like him back since she doesn’t have any desire of his own. It’s specifically a criticism of some people’s belief that women don’t need to play a fully consenting part in their own relationships.

But women can’t be passive receptacles of desire when talking about general attraction to women, or really attraction in general. You can’t minimize the free will of women in relation to attraction because people’s attraction has literally nothing to do with the people they’re attracted to.

Me thinking Jeanine Mason is hot af means literally nothing to her because she doesn’t know who I am and I don’t engage in creepy behaviors like @ ing her on twitter. Same for Idris Elba. We can all thirst over him and that’s not treating him like a passive receptacle for our desire because we’re not treating him like anything. We’re just minding our own business and admiring his jawline.

Desire for people isn’t in inherently bad or problematic.

The phrase “passive receptacles for desire” really ONLY makes sense in the context of behavior or harmful thought patterns against a specific person (“i like her and I’m nice to her so she owes me sex”) and doesn’t really belong in discussions about the inherent ability to feel attraction towards a particular gender

I get what you're saying and it makes sense. I def could have worded that better. And you've pretty much got part of what I was trying to say.

The other part is how we're conditioned to see female desire as inherently lacking agency. Bear with me while I try and find words to put around that.

The reason I used "passive receptacles" was that...it's hard to feel like what we desire matters. Not that we want to be creepy over other women, but that we're so used to being objects ourselves that actually being attracted to another woman just feels like, "yeah I mean that's what we're here for right? To be desired? It doesn't mean it's something we're supposed to explore or anything."

That might sound like what you already said, but for me it speaks to a wider problem of how we're not given a vocabulary or legitimacy for sexual attraction (AFAB attraction? Since it's about gender conditioning?) in general. We're conditioned to see sex as something done to us and sexual attraction as something that happens to us. We're consistently shamed and punished for being sexual creatures. We're either too twee or slutty in how we express our feelings, and we're either trying too hard or not trying hard enough to get male attention. Even the guys teen girls tend to crush on are treated like jokes. We're made to internalize that sexy is what attracts masculine cis men, sex is what cis men do, a woman's sexuality is a performance for the male gaze and what attracts men is both the default and ideal. So when women feel same sex attraction we have no frame of reference for it. That's part of why we interpret it as "holy shit girl you're killing it at this whole sexy thing" instead of "oh my god these are all my personal buttons you're smashing please kiss me".

Add to the fact that w|w love is either invisible, desexualized (I say as an asexual - romantic love is 100% valid but there's a difference between asexuality and desexualization) or as hypersexual male fantasies, women (and other AFAB people) end up with zero idea of how to recognize same sex attraction, let alone legitimize it. So yeah, we end up thinking it's commonplace to love women and want them until someone clues us in that "actually, that's all you".

(Apologies for the awkward use of gender terms. Please feel free to correct my phrasing. Also if what I'm saying is too cisnormative.)

Avatar
reblogged

less “if you see a man and woman together at pride be nice! they could be bi/pan/trans/ace/aro” and more “stop gendering strangers to harass them anywhere, but especially at pride holy shit”

you know what? i want this to reach the people who do this– especially the ones claiming to support trans folk (usually in really hollow ways lol i’m not bitter). keep reblogging– i want this sentiment to be widespread and for people to stop gendering strangers! especially in explicitly LGBTQ+ spaces!

Also, even if it’s a man and a woman, even if they are both cis, even if they are a cis couple – do you really have to bother them? They might be there to be supportive or for any other reason. As long as someone is just “there” and not trying to start any trouble, just leave them alone.

Avatar
Avatar
penrosesun

On the issue of the ‘q slur’...

So, yesterday, I got into a rather stupid internet argument with someone who was peddling what seemed to me to be a rather insidious narrative about slur-reclamation. Someone in the ensuing notes raised a point which I thought was interesting, and worrying, and probably needed to be addressed in it’s own post. So here we go:

The word ‘queer’ itself seems to be especially touchy for many, so let me begin to address this by way of analogy.

Instead of talking about “queer”, let’s start by talking about “Jew” - a word which I believe is very similar in its usage in some significant ways.

Now, the word “Jew” has been used as a derogatory term for literally hundreds of years. It is used both as a noun (eg. “That guy ripped me off - what a dirty Jew”) and as a verb (eg. “That guy really Jew-ed me”). These usages are deeply, fundamentally, horrifically offensive, and should be used under no circumstances, ever. And yet, I myself have heard both, even as recently as this past year, even in an urban location with plenty of Jews, in a social situation where people should have known better. In short – the word “Jew”, as it is used by certain antisemites, is – quite unambiguously – a slur. Not a dead slur, not a former slur – and active, living slur that most Jews will at some point in their life encounter in a context where the term is being used to denigrate them and their religion. 

Now here’s the thing, though: I’m a Jew. I call myself a Jew. I prefer that all non-Jews call me a Jew – so do most Jews I know. “Jew” is the correct term for someone who is part of the religion of Judaism, the same way that “Muslim” is the correct term for someone who is part of the religion of Islam, and “Christian” is the correct term for someone who is part of the religion of Christianity. 

In fact, almost all of the terms that non-Jews use to avoid saying “Jew” (eg. “a member of the Jewish persuasion”, “a follower of the Jewish faith”, “coming from a Jewish family”, “identifying as part of the Jewish religion”, etc) are deeply offensive, because these terms imply to us that the speaker sees the term “Jew” (and by extension, what that term stands for) as a dirty word.

“BUT WAIT” – I hear you say – “didn’t you just say that Jew is used as a slur?!?”

Yes. Yes, I did. And also, it is fundamentally offensive not to call us that, because it is our name and our identity.

Let me back up a little bit, and bring you into the world of one of those 2000s PSAs about not using “that’s so gay”. Think of some word that is your identity – something which you consider to be a fundamental and intrinsic part of yourself. It could be “female” or “male”, or “Black” or “white”, “tall” or “short”, “Atheist” or “Mormon” or “Evangelical” – you name it.

Now imagine that people started using that term as a slur.

“What a female thing to do!” they might say. “That teacher doesn’t know anything, he’s so female!”

Or maybe, “Yikes, look at that idiot who’s driving like an atheist. It’s so embarrassing!”

Or perhaps, “Oh gross, that music is so Black, turn it off!”

Now, what would you say if the same groups of people who had been saying those things for years turned around and avoided using those words to describe anything other than an insult?

“Oh, so I see you’re a member of the female persuasion!”

“Is he… a follower of the atheist beliefs? Like does he identify as part of the community of atheist-aligned individuals?”

“So, as a Black-ish identified person yourself – excuse me, as a person who comes from a Black-ish family…”

Here’s the fundamental problem with treating all words that are used as slurs the same, without any regard for how they are used and how they developed – not all slurs are the same.

No one, and I mean no one (except maybe for a small handful of angsty teens who are deliberately making a point of being edgy) self-identifies as a kike. In contrast, essentially all Jews self-identify as Jews. And when non-Jews get weird about that identity on the grounds that “Jew is used as a slur”, despite the fact that it is the name that the Jewish community as a whole resoundingly identifies with, what they are basically saying is that they think that the slur usage is more important than the Jewish community self-identification usage. They are saying, in essence, “we think that your name should be a slur.” 

Now, at the top I said that the word “Jew” and the word “queer” had some significant similarities in terms of their usage, and I think that’s pretty apparent if you look at what people in those communities are saying about those terms. When American Jews were being actively threatened by neo-Nazis in the 70s, the slogan of choice was “For every Jew a .22!″. When the American Queer community was marching in the 90s in protest of systemic anti-queer violence, the slogan of choice was “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” Clearly, these are terms that are used by the communities themselves, in reference to themselves. Clearly, these terms are more than simply slurs.

But while there are useful similarities between how the terms “Jew” and “Queer” are used by bigots and by their own communities, I’d also like to point out that there is pretty substantial and important difference:

Unlike for “queer”, there is no organized group of Jewish antisemites who are using the catchphrase “Jew is a slur!” in order to selectively silence and disenfranchise Jews who are part of minority groups within Judaism. 

This is the real rub with the term queer – no one was campaigning about it being a slur until less than a decade ago. No one was saying that you needed to warn for the word queer when queer people were establishing the academic discipline of queer studies. No one was ‘think of the children”-ing the umbrella term when queer activists were literally marching for their lives. Go back to even 2010 and the term “q slur” would have been basically unparseable – if I saw someone tag something “q slur”, like most queer people I would have wracked my brains trying to figure out what slur even started with q, and if I learned that it was supposed to be “queer”, my default assumption would be that the post was made by a well-meaning but extremely clueless straight person.

I literally remember this shift – and I remember who started it. Exclusionists didn’t like the fact that queer was an umbrella term. Terfs (or radfems as they like to be called now) didn’t like that queer history included trans history; biphobes and aphobes didn’t like that the queer community was also a community to bisexuals and asexuals. And so what could they possibly say, to drive people away from the term that was protecting the sorts of queer people that they wanted to exclude?

Well, naturally, they turned to “queer is a slur.”

And here’s the thing – queer is a slur, just like Jew is a slur, and no one is denying that. And that fact makes “queer is a slur so don’t use it” a very convincing argument on the surface: 1) queer is still often used as a slur, and 2) you shouldn’t ever use slurs without carefully tagging and warning people about them (and better yet, you should never use them at all), and so therefore 3) you need to tag for “the q slur” and you need to warn people not to call the community “the queer community” or it’s members “queer people” or its study “queer studies” – because it’s a slur!

But the crucial step that’s missing here is exactly the same one above, for the word “Jew” – and that step is that not all slurs are the same. When a term is both used as a slur and used as a self-identity term, then favoring the slur meaning instead of the identity meaning is picking the side of the slur-users over the disadvantaged group! 

If you say or tag “q slur” you are sending the message, whether you realize it or not, that people who use “queer” as a slur are more right about its meaning than those who use it as their identity. Tagging for “queer” is one thing. People can filter for “queer” if it triggers them, just like people can filter for anything else. Not everyone has to personally use the term queer, or like the term queer. But there is no circumstance where the term “q slur” does not indicate that you think queer is more of a slur than of an accurate description of a community.

If I, as a Jew, ever came across a post where someone had warned for innocent, positive, non-antisemitic content relating to Judaism with the tag “J slur”, I would be incensed. So would any Jew. The act of tagging a post “J slur” is in and of itself antisemitic and offensive.

Queer people are allowed to feel the same about “q slur”. It is not a neutral warning term – it is an attack on our identity.

Finally, someone managed to coherently articulate what I’ve been trying to tell people.

Any word can be used as a slur- I mean really, the term “queer” was around before “gay” was

Avatar
kyraneko

Sometimes thieves assert “this is bad for you!” as part of their attempt to steal it from you. This is true whether they want it for themselves or whether, like a selfish child throwing candy down the storm drain in front of their classmates once they’re not hungry for it anymore, they just don’t want you to have it.

THEY are what’s bad for you.

Avatar
reblogged

There’s an incredible amount of discourse in the LGBTQ Extended Universe of people very angry that certain factions would perceive their sexual attraction to women as being inherently predatory. Various types of lesbians and bisexuals and trans people attracted to cis women, who all need to make it very clear that their attraction to women is wholesome and harmless.

Which would all be unnecessary if you just didn’t concede the radfems’ point in the first place: that hetero male attraction to women is automatically suspicious, probably inherently predatory.

If you concede that point, then various types of queer or trans people have to find a way to differentiate their own attraction to women as different than hetero male attraction. “How dare you imply that I as a butch lesbian/trans woman/male-attracted bisexual woman am in any way analogous to a hetero male in my sexual interest in women.” Since you’ve already conceded the point that hetero male attraction is bad, you’re stuck fighting a rear-guard action to prove that not all sexual attraction to women is bad, it’s only bad when it comes from cishet men–perhaps only when it comes from white cishet men because some of the more advanced woke people understand the historical atrocity of identifying black male sexual interest as dangerous.

And this discourse will never end. You’ll never effectively delineate who is ~wholesome~ when they want pussy and who is ~yikes~ when they want it. Not unless you’re going to be an out-and-out TERF who can easily cut through this issue by simply refusing to agree that trans women are women and trans men are men.

You could, of course, refuse to concede the point in the first place. You could say “no, it’s actually fine to be horny. It’s fine to want pussy. Men aren’t doing anything wrong by being sexually interested in women and pursuing sexual relationships with women.” 

But that’s difficult, because it undermines the entire basis of at least half of the feminist movement since its 19th-century inception, which is based in sexual repression and the identification of sexual intercourse as the primary site of women’s oppression. Which is why to this day the only concession the radfems can make to free love or sex-positivity is “well, some women are deeply damaged and traumatized, and for some unfathomable reason they want to have sex with men, and like with drug use or the sex industry, it causes harmful side-effects if we try to use force to stop women from self-harming in this way (by having sex with men), so we’ll bitterly tolerate women being horny, but male horniness is still absolutely unacceptable.” Hence “sex-critical” feminism, the reincarnation of sex-negative feminism. They happen to regret wholeheartedly allying with the Christian Right in the 1980s; but they still don’t think they made any moral or theoretical errors there, only tactical errors. 

Avatar

There is no queer subculture that belongs exclusively to one sexual or gender identity. Queerness is not race; we cannot appropriate from or ape each other, because queerness is an exploration of oneself yourself that cisheteronormativity will not allow. It must by its definition be permeable and permissive. Queerness is the state of living beyond bounded lines; creating exclusionist spaces is to recreate the same oppression we sought to escape from.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.