#BISEXUALITY DOES NOT JUST INCLUDE CISHET MEN AND WOMEN!

[one-a-n-d-lonely]

I'M TIRED OF THE BI DISCOURSE! ANYONE I AM ATTRACTED TO I AM ATTRACTED TO IN A GAY WAY. BECAUSE I AM GAY!! ANY RELATIONSHIP I HAVE IS A QUEER RELATIONSHIP. BECAUSE I AM QUEER AND I AM ATTRACTED TO OTHER QUEER PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

[tactfullyinappropriate]

Ohhh boy, I'm gonna get a lot of flak for this one but... masc lesbian =/= butch. You can be the most masculine presenting person the world has ever known and that does not automatically make you butch.

Butch is an identity and you kinda need to fit that identity, not make the identity fit you. E.g. "lesbians" who are attracted to cishet men. Sorry, hun, you're just not a lesbian. Find your own identity that fits. You are allowed to be your own kind of bisexual or pansexual but what you are not, is a lesbian.

Sure, there is a lot of room for being your own person within an identity. I am not the same kind of lesbian as the next dyke. But if I did not fit (or if I no longer fit) the definition of the lesbian identity, I wouldn't call myself one and insist that lesbians expand the definition to include me.

'Butch' as an identity exists within a certain context. It *is not* a synonym to man, and it's also not a synonym to 'a masculine presenting lesbian'. If you don't vibe with the whole 'chivalry' concept and the specific ways in with butch/femme courtship (as an example) happens, maybe consider if this is the right label for you before insisting that we expand or rather completely rewrite the definition to exclude those things from it.

Some of the discourse around 'we should redefine butch!' reminds me of the discourse around redefining manhood. "It's not fair that men are expected to have masculine hobbies," they say. "It's not fair that men cannot wear glitter and makeup and retain their manhood. It's not fair that men are expected to open doors, and carry heavy things, and to-to---" Yes. You are exactly right. But butches are not men.

'Butch' is an opt-in identity, not something that society at large expects and requires from you. In other words: if you think femmes gushing about being courted by their butches in what to you appears to be a 1960s play-pretend of patriarchy, is silly, objectifying or demeaning toward one of the parties... consider that maybe 'butch' is not the identity for you. That maybe you are a masculine person with their own unique take on masculinity.

But insisting that we redefine butch is like me insisting that we redefine 'yoga' because I vibe with the gymnastics but I don't like the spiritual aspect of it. I can just go to Pilates instead. Or do yoga and accept that other people in the practice experience it differently.

What I am endlessly tired of, as a femme, is being lectured on what I *should* and *should not* find attractive. I am not somehow betraying feminism, objectifying people and degrading myself by daydreaming of a butch who opens the car door for me or - the absolute horror - brings me flowers on a date. I recognize that other people have the right to their own attraction and that masculine lesbians deserve the freedom to explore masculinity on their own terms and be treated with dignity and respect regardless of where that exploration takes them and regardless of who does or does not find them attractive.

That being said, the whole narrative of 'if you find chivalry hot, then you are objectifying butches and you are, in fact, an entitled selfish person' is tiresome. Not all femmes are women but in being chastised for our turn-ons and romantic daydreams (unless we're the Cool Girl who doesn't like flowers and rolls her eyes at romance) I see a lot of the admonishment directed toward cis straight women who dare to swoon when they read romance where the male lead is courteous and generous.

Except, again, butch/femme *is not* man/woman. It's a particular subculture within the lesbian identity and no one is pressuring anyone into conforming to it.

[nonconformityhub]

https://www.tumblr.com/nonconformityhub/752900218271547392/a-few-people-had-issues-with-my-friends-use-of

Hi! I like that your blog is dedicated to exploring new language about various identities, but as a lesbian, please know that "bi lesbian" (or "mspec lesbian") is a harmful, lesbophobic and biphobic term.

"Bi/mspec lesbian" erases both identities (implying that bisexuals are under the "lesbian umbrella" and that lesbians are attracted to the opposite gender/men, both which are factually untrue). "Lesbian" is not an umbrella term for all sapphics.

Also, "bi/mspec lesbian" confuses the greater public (including cishet men) who are mislead to think lesbians are into them, therefore contributing to ("corrective") r4pe culture. Lesbians are not attracted to men and do not date men, period.

No need to co-opt "lesbian" by attaching "bi" to it, when terms like "bisexual", "sapphic" and "wlw" exist (not to mention that "lesbian" already encompasses women and woman-aligned nonbinary people).

Erasure and misleading language is the last thing we need in our community. Could you please amend/correct your post?

Thank you!

Hello! I appreciate your views but plenty of lesbians and bisexuals support this term too (see all the reblogs and likes on that post)

You may personally see no need to reclaim a historic interpretation of lesbian or no need for people who are fluid between bi and lesbian, bisexual homoromantic/homosexual biromantic, and so on to use the term bi lesbian - but they clearly see a need to, that's why it exists

The term has come back into use from the 1970s/80s/90s because people needed it to, language doesn't just come back when nobody needs it. People have a use for the word, many of said uses are described in the post and in those 70s/80s/90s accounts (poetry, interviews, all sorts can be found out there)

You'll also notice that the identity is yet to confuse the general public into thinking all lesbians like men or even enter public awareness, and if it does, identifiers provide resources and definitions for their identity like the infographic my friend made to clear these things up

I will not be 'correcting' the post because not only did I not make that infographic, but the information being presented is correct. It correctly tells you why people identify as bi lesbians and it correctly tells you the history of the term, you can think it's a pointless or damaging term but the information there is correct

By far the biggest reason people find use in it is because they are bisexual homoromantic or homosexual biromantic, and they're clarifying that the 'homo' part is lesbian - hence bi lesbian, bisexual lesbian, biromantic lesbian

This is my favourite carrd for talking about the historical and modern reasons for combining the two

Labels are personal and exist for an individual to understand themselves and express their experience of the world in a way that works for them, and we can't just decide what way works for them

[wolfertinger]

"//keep anon, as usual

i know he tries to position this as quirky queer behavior, by this refusal unravels a little..more of his unsavory character. he is unwilling to branch out and experiment with depicting more experiences, he has a disdain for masculine men but paints it as Cis men, and then paints that as just Cishet men.

He is unwilling to draw cis gay men, trans het men, aspec cis/het men, he will only draw a person if they sexually appeal to him, and he has a very, very narrow window of what he finds attractive.

you are not a faggot, nor are you an ally, Salem.

he reblogged a post mentioning AIDS and the tragedy that the queer community went through. one issue. he hates gay men. he has never drawn a gay man (always bisexual and always with a girl) and he never will.

AIDS very much affected cis gay men, trans heterosexual men, straight women, AIDS has affected many people, even people beyond the lgbtq community.

At first he said "cis men". cis gay men included.

his passing reblog of AIDS memorial is purely performative. he doesnt give a fuck about AIDS or AIDS survivors.

He doesnt give a fuck about gay men.

lets be real here salem you would do the same to a masc tguy or a butch dyke if you could. you just dont like masculinity."

i think it is odd most of all, that he says this. yet, already made a cis and masc character, proving he CAN do it, and even made porn, of this oc, a week after his creation. it is not that he is incapable. he simply, does not want to. if that is his choice. fine. but, it is odd, you claim to want to represent "everyone", to the point your followers even ask, if you will draw a cis man. and you not only say no. but make fun of the person asking. intersectionality is important, for a reason.

[hollow-lime-green]

i have been summoned by the utterance of my name ("top/bottom anon")

just wanted to say i super agree with what you said about how people want very badly to be fucked by gojo and that may make some (SOME) of them hostile toward the idea of him liking men + potentially taking it up the ass. may be speculation, but it's a conclusion ive also come to so you're not alone

"gojo would NEVER be gay you guys just want everybody to be GAY and im NOT homophobic but he is too MANLY AND ATTRACTIVE to be gay!!" not only does it imply he wouldn't be into dear reader, but like you said, it challenges the masculinized idea of him that many might have.

(which bothers me in its own right, because to Me, that's never seemed much like a guy who cares, in his adulthood. certainly not after his gage-wearing, long hair having, painted nails, empath emo best friend changed his life. then again, i enjoy hitting my faves with just a dash of nonbinary swag, so im biased surely)

along similar lines, there's also the other side of the fandom, the male-dominated shounen bro side. including the guys with 100% totally not gay man-crushes on gojo. not that the average member of that side of the community is even aware of t/b discourse but. many of them (but not all, in a few fun and surprising instances) will die on the hill that gojo likes girls despite the fact that there's not really much reason to believe that --- ntm people who like girls And boys do in fact exist. and they Definitely reject the idea that he could be anything but masculine and dominant. they want to relate to gojo and see themselves in him, admire his strength and collectedness, very sigma, so by shipping satosugu you're challenging THEIR masculinity. because if gojo's not "man enough" then neither are they and that would just be a travesty

but real machismo is Taking It like a man‼️💪 what are you afraid of some dick in the ass or something? idk man that sounds real feminine....... kinda gay if u ask me

- ☁️

yeah, you nailed it, this is what i was getting at.

these are the ways that even fujos (fujos in name only (FINOs?)) can be super guilty of perpetuating toxic masculinity. hit that with a dash of bisexual erasure and internalized homophobia, et voila, you have your shitstorm in a teacup.

(and of course, this does not apply to all self-shippers. i know there's some gojoxreader pegging fanfic out here on tumblr, and thank god for that)

i also want to note that this particular flavor of bigotry is very "it hurt itself in its confusion". even today we still have right wing influencers saying "WAP is concerning my wife's pussy is never wet", "sex shouldn't last longer than 3 minutes or ur gay", and "i'd never perform cunnilingus, cunnilick deez NUTS".

a man, especially a cis man, being open to sexual experimentation, especially that which goes against cishet conservative norms, is a green flag. not only in terms of how likely he is to consider female sexual satisfaction, but also more broadly in terms of his ideas on gender/sexuality, or openness to new ideas. if you want gojo satoru (fictional, by the way) to having the freak sex i see in these fanfics (/pos), then you must accept that he'd also probably be open to taking it up the ass (at least once, to try it).

sexual liberation means sexual liberation for women. it also must mean sexual liberation for men. (and, of course, all who fall between)

[thebreakfastgenie]

does no one on earth ever like to remember gaga is lgbt herself? like yes it's still a good thing but why do we act like she's some ultimate cishet ally, she has always been out as bisexual

I mentioned that she was bisexual somewhere in the reblog chain but I'm not sure if the version that got all the notes included that part! She's a cis bi woman who has been a vocal ally to trans women for a long time. Lady Gaga and Chappell Roan being cis allies to trans women was relevant to that post because the right is currently trying to drive a wedge between us and it's important to see cis women acknowledge trans women as our sisters in this political climate. If anyone referred to Lady Gaga as het, I didn't see it.

People do tend to forget that she's bi in general. I think it's partly because she hasn't really publicly dated women and is pretty private with her personal life overall, which is absolutely her right and does not make her any less bisexual, but she tends to be associated with gay men because of her fan base so I think without the constant reminders people forget that she's not straight just because she's not a gay man.

[moppything]

BI LESBIANS AND BI GAYS EXIST AND ARE VALID!!! take a look at yourself and your terf rhetorics if you disagree ^_^

no-one who is bi lesbian has EVER said that every lesbian is attracted to men, that's literally why they add 'bi' to their identity, it's because they acknowledge that lesbian by itself does not typically include men!! so no, no-one aside from mostly cishet men is trying to tell lesbian women that they have to like men. stop projecting homophobic mindsets onto other queer people who clearly do not have those mindsets, they are affected by homophobia just as much as you are!

when you worry so much about other people's sexualities and whether they include men or not you demonize those who are attracted to men, which not only include some bi lesbians but also just bisexual and pansexual women in general! stop throwing other women and other queer people under the bus just to enforce your negative feelings surrounding men, it is not helping anyone aside from the people who are oppressing us!

[stampsthemeow]

CREEPYPASTA AU STUFF AGAIN !!

Sexuality + Pronouns :333 (+ships aswell)

majority of them are queer

Characters included; Jeff the killer, Twilight (OC), Ticci toby, EJ, Ben, Sally, Brian, Tim, Missing (OC), Alex, Jay, Dale (OC), Halo (OC), Zach (OC), Nina, Clockwork, Jane, Mary, Charlotte (OC), Casper (OC), Caroline (OC), Corrupt (OC)

fuck it Slenderman too

Jeff- Bisexual Heteroromantic, He/Him but honestly would not gaf if you used they/it on him (he and Twil r dating)

Twilight- Bisexual (pref for men), She/her but would not gaf if you uses He/they/it on her (she/her still pref tho) (she and jeff are dating) (used to kinda date corrupt)

Toby - Bisexual, He/they, doesnt like it/its being used ever on him (he and ej are dating) (he and clockwork r exes)

EJ- Asexual, demiromantic, & gay, Aboy (agender but pref to be seen as masc) He/Hx/it honestly doesnt gaf about what you use as long as its masc/genderless (he and toby are dating)

Ben - does not care, he/him

Sally - straight, She/her (Charles uses he/him btw)

Brian- Bisexual (pref for men), He/him (him, tim, and missing r dating)

Tim- Gay, He/Him (he, brian, and missing r dating)

Missing- Pansexual, Trans, does not gaf about pronouns but pref for he/him (he, Tim and Brian r dating)

Alex- Bi curious (is unsure and isnt bothered to figure it out), He/it (used to date amy) (used to date Jay)

Jay- Gay, somewhere on the ace spectrum, Trans, He/him (used to date alex)

Dale- unlabeled (too busy doing other stuff to figure it out), He/Him + xenos (mostly Shark and space themed xenos), no its/its (he, halo, and zach r dating)

Halo- Queer/unlabeled (he doesnt like women tho he only likes men, he just prefs to not label himself) He/him, no it/its (he, dale, and zach r dating)

Zach- gay, he/they/it (he, halo, and dale r dating)

Nina- bisexual, Demigirl, She/shx doesnt mind neos/xenos being used on her (Maybe dating clockwork its not offical but they might aswell be)

Clockwork- Omnisexual, Aceflux, She/her (she lets nina use neos/xenos on her tho) (Maybe dating Nina its not offical but they might aswell be) (used to date toby)

Jane- Lesbain, She/her (married to Mary)

Mary- Bisexual (heavy pref for women), she/her (married to Jane)

Charlotte- Lesbian, asexual, Trans, she/her (she/it when Smiler) (dating Caroline)

Casper- Straight, He/him (cishet 🙀🙀🙀)

Caroline- Lesbian, asexual, She/it (dating Charlotte) Corrupt- Lesbain, asexual, She/her but would not gaf if u used Neos (exes with Twil)

Slenderman-

hes fucking slenderman he doesnt need to label his sexuality or gender (he has kissed men before, He/it)

If anyone i listed has a canonical sexuality that i changed i am sorry i am just a silly little guy

if i missed anyone

whoopies

[mouseratz]

I don't know it's like always with the assumption that transgender and bisexual women in particular are Predatory against cis lesbians constantly begging to fuck them regardless of interest or consent (like many cishet men) and it's just.....what a weird way to view the world. what world do you live in. actually where ARE the terribly horny desperate women you're imagining lining up outside your bathroom stall? most of the time it is queer women asking to be included in queer women's events or spaces and treated respectfully and as though they belong there. that is what I see.

it does actually very much remind me of homophobic men not wanting to share spaces with gay men because they're afraid they'll end up being forced to do gay sex (which also happens with women. there's a predatory lesbian myth too. which some radfems might have firsthand experience with, actually). when like. that's just not a common thing unless you consider everyone in a group as inherently dangerous rapists.

that's why it's blatantly exclusionary and hateful, even if you're just think you're saying "I don't want to fuck them", if you're saying that when nobody asked, you're also saying all this other bullshit.

in a patriarchal society you'd think radfems would know very well who is most likely to sexually assault whom and where there are truly power imbalances, but it's like, they rope in all this other shit based on personal disgust because they decided penis = evil oppressor, and often extend it to even the mere association with a body part. it's not even masculinity, it's like there's an Evil Organ For Harm in this view, and once you're ~~tainted~~ by it, you can never go back. (which is also how you get an easy conservative connection. in addition to being reductive of gender and extremely sex negative, it also directly parallels extreme Christian beliefs, except those Christians then argue that patriarchy is natural and must not be disturbed despite the harm it causes; the harm is an important fabric of society.

radfems do not agree that the harm should be part of society, but in doing so, still agree on and blame the same source, which is usually literally The Penis. The Penis, then, becomes basically a stand-in for the Devil/temptation to sin, so you still end up pulling a 360 and end up with extremely similar beliefs and worldviews, just with a few things tweaked, thereby still navigating the world through primarily fear and disgust and being extremely prone to outright fascist belief and policy.)

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

"Character X is Y sexuality" is such a dumb take to invalidate people's shipping.

If canon mattered that much in people's shipping/headcanons, Zutara wouldn't be popular. Everyone would (correctly) be disgusted by the concept of Z*c*st. Shipping wouldn't even be an actual thing, fanfic wouldn't be a thing.

People have always taken supposedly cishet characters and made them queer in their fan works.

("Azula is straight" gives me the same vibe of "Yelena is ar*-ac*". It's not explicitly mentioned in canon.

Oh, but she only showed interest in men.

So did Korra until she didn't and guess who she ends up with.

Kyoshi says she has to convince herself she's not in love with Yun and guess who she ends up with.

They'll kill Azula off, probably, take away her bending and finish ruining her character before there's a chance she's canonically queer.

Canon still doesn't mean much.

Unless clearly stated, anything is a headcanon.

Including "Azula is straight".)

This is a good ass blog, but that kind of take just ruins all of it for me.

"To invalidate people's ships" You're REALLY gonna pretend you didn't see me literally list all the lesbian ships I have for Azula, and that I didn't say I would love for her to be bisexual, huh? Again, I don't give a damn what people ship or what kind of fan content they want to create, I only don't like being told to treat fanon (even fanon I like) as canon because it leads to dishonest analysis of a show.

You: Unless something is clearly stated, it is not canon!

Also you: Azula canonically only ever shows interest men and never in women, and I personally think the writers would rather torture and kill her character than show her as a queer woman. But if you say that means she's canonically straight, I'll yell at you.

Make it make sense.

Also "Korra ended up with in a relationship with someone that the writers, by their own admission, never made her be explicitly or implicitly interested in because they were two cowards that were not at all interested in rocking the boat" is NOT the winning argument you think it is. And that doesn't retroactively make Azula bi or a lesbian, it's just extra proof that the writting for Legend Of Korra was TERRIBLE!

"Kyoshi SAYS a thing that confirms she's bisexual"

Congratulations! You found actual representation! Aka something being considered canon to a particular story BECAUSE IT WAS EXPLICITLY SHOWN TO THE AUDIENCE THROUGH THINGS THAT WE SEE PLAY OUT!

"Oh, but Azula never said she is NOT into women, so even though she is only ever shown to be attracted to men, we can't rule out the possibility of her secretly liking women too until she full on says it!"

Wanna go there? Fine. Then you cannot tell me that the Fire Nation royal family doesn't have a tradition of incest like many real life royals did, and that Zuko and Azula did not at least consider the possibility of marrying each other to avoid an Agni Kai for the crown like we saw in the finale. Sure, that is never explicitly confirmed by canon, but it was never explicitly stated to NOT be the case either, and according to you that TOTALLY means it is not at all impossible for this kids' show to have secretly said "incest is wincest" all along, because apparently the writers need Zuko and Azula, the two characters in a KIDS show, to look at the camera and say "Our family tree is not a circle" for us to understand that this family that has never been stated to practice incest, does not, in fact, practice incest.

"Canon doesn't mean much anyway" Then why are you mad that I said "Even though I would like for Azula to be bisexual, that is simply not canon. There's sadly just no way any character in a kid's show made in 2005 was meant to read as anything other than straight"?

Considering you felt the need to:

1 - Point out that Zutara is a ship with no canon basis AND that you like my blog, literally called "Zutara was never CANON."

2 - Randomly mention the fact that my OTP, Zucest, is also not canon AND that plenty of people, you clearlt included, find it absolutely disgusting (like I somehow didn't get the memo on that).

3 - STILL cherry pick stuff to claim Queer!Azula could totally stealthly be a canon thing.

I'd say you only have a problem with me saying things like "X is canon, Y is not" because YOU very much think of canon as being inherently better than fanon, so when I point out something you dislike is not canon that means my blog is awesome to you because you see it as validating your opinion that something is trash, but the second I go "But this other thing you (and I) like/are neutral on is not canon either" suddenly I'm the devil because I'm "attacking" people for something that is just harmless fun.

The whole "Azula is not canonically bi/gay, so any headcanon of her being queer is bad" is in YOUR head, honey. You're never gonna hear that kind of crap from me, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

And as a bisexual woman, I'd appreciate some ACTUAL REPRESENTATION of bisexuality being praised, instead of garbage like the incredibly insufferable Korra/Mako/Asami love triangle ending with a nonsensical conclusion that people praise just because it had two women *gasp* holding hands! And even THAT being hidden away since Korra's last season was basically dumped online because the show's ratings were terrible.

[musicrunsthroughmysoul]

Wow, why would I kid myself about reading reviews of Skunk Anansie's debut album/why would I think that presumably majority cishet white male reviewers would have ANYTHING THOUGHTFUL to say about this album or Skunk Anansie's music in general?

It makes me want to fucking hurl, to be honest.

(Long rant below that gets pretty off-topic at the end, as rants often do, anyway.)

Not that I'm saying that I completely relate to what Skin wrote lyrically (there are at least several songs on this album that are pointed specifically about racism and sexism experienced by Skin, who is a Black bisexual woman) - nor am I saying that the band musically broke a whole lot of new ground [retrospectively] - on this album, but what the hell kind of a person could you be not to recognize the depth of this album nonetheless?! Retrospectively, I just feel like you must at least acknowledge the way Skin dug deep lyrically which is, admittedly, then kind of like asking 'How do you critique something so deeply personal?' to say anything against that..., and it's remarkable. And as far as musically goes, I think quite a bit of it is rather creative - AND THAT'S, AGAIN, A RETROSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE ON IT - but not all of it was mind-blowing or enough unlike at least twenty other rock songs I've heard that I know were released prior to 1995 when this album was released. LOL Still, as I read (to the horror and deep dissatisfaction of my stomach) some reviews of it I just kept wondering about those reviewers, 'So what kind of music is Peak 💯 The Best Music You've Ever Heard to YOU? Probably stuff written and performed by cishet white men, huh?' Because the best punk music was written by cishet white men, because the best rock music was written by cishet white men, because the best metal music was written by cishet white men...BLAH. BLAH. FUCKING BLAH. CHANGE THE FUCKING CHANNEL. And I'd suggest starting with the history of these genres first, and then you can try telling me that cishet white men actually improved on what was initially pioneered by Black musicians, including Black women musicians.

Anyway...I just think it might make reviews/critiques the tiniest bit more stomachable if people (CISHET WHITE MEN) were willing to admit the ways their biases may prevent them from seeing true value in art like this. Because it's still important to ask, 'Why did the artist create this art? How does it succeed in its goal, or how could it do better?' SIMPLE CRITIQUE QUESTIONS TO ASK [YOURSELF ABOUT THE ART] BEFORE POSTING YOUR BULLSHIT, IN OTHER WORDS. (Although yes, of course I come at this - and everything I do - from a writing perspective specifically, so maybe those aren't universal questions to consider for all types of art. But I don't see how asking and answering those questions would be harmful to any piece of art? Especially because I think that answering those types of questions would still reveal your own biases, which is NOT A BAD THING - IT CREATES SELF-AWARENESS, WHICH IS A GOOD THING. And I'm not sure why I'm wasting my valuable time screaming into the internet void about this, except that it's always fucking relevant and I've known it ever since I fucking joined Tumblr, specifically to be part of the classic rock fandom.)

[my-random-shit-blog]

Queer Cornley headcanons are making their rounds in the discord again (/pos) so here's mine in depth!

Annie

Pronouns: she/they

Orientation & gender identity: Sapphic nonbinary

- I feel like Annie identifies with being a woman but not strictly a woman. Sometimes their gender feels less binary or sometimes they just feel like they don't have one. It fluctuates for her. As for her sexuality, she just loves women. The reason I don't see her as a lesbian though is because I feel like she can be attracted to men, but it's more of a shallow, purely physical, attraction.

Sandra

Pronouns: she/her

Orientation & gender identity: Bisexual, cis woman

Not much to say about this one, it's just obvious and that's okay lmaoo

Jonathon

Pronouns: he/him

Orientation & gender identity: unlabeled, cis man

Everyone assumes Jonathan is the only cishet in Cornley, and he understands why. He's straight passing and most of his relationships and sexual endeavors have been with women, but he's not not attracted to other genders. He's just kind of into anybody who's into him and prefers not to tie himself to a specific label. Since it wasn't something he explicitly ever made known, the rest of Cornley found out about it when they went to a party together and him and another man were making out in the kitchen and half of the group walked in on it.

Chris

Pronouns: he/him

Orientation & gender identity: bisexual, cis man

Chris struggled a lot with his sexuality in his youth but when he went to uni, he slowly started to become okay with his bi-ness and let himself explore. Nowadays he's very casual and comfortable about his orientation.

Robert

Pronouns: he/him

Orientation & gender identity: a fucking gay mess, cis man

Robert is mlm, he's felt attraction for men for as long as he can remember. He knows this, but it's a big point of discomfort for him due to experiences in his childhood. He's fine with anybody else being queer but when it comes to himself, he's got major internalized homophobia. It does not help that the long-term subject of his attraction is one Chris Bean. He hates the complicated way he feels about Chris. He equally wants to punch Chris in the face as much as he wants to kiss him within an inch of his life. There is a part of him that is genuinely attracted to women, but only in specific circumstances. One of the main reasons Denise left him is because she figured this out, he never really loved her like that. He loved her in other ways though, but the reason that her leaving him affects him so much, is because she was a protective blanket and a comfortable lie. With her out of the picture, the parts of him he was desperately trying to repress are more persistent.

Max

Pronouns: he/him/any

Orientation & gender identity: pansexual, cis(ish) man

Max just loves people, but mostly his sexuality is; Sandra. He's just so madly in love with her. Though, I do think they would have a more open relationship, in terms of physically anyways. Max and Sandra are each other's #1's but they are alright with the other kissing, having hook ups, or other things, with other people; they also will include others in their ~spicy times~

Vanessa

Pronouns: she/her

Orientation & gender identity: lesbian, cis woman

I also don't really have much to add to this, but to me she'd be the epitome of a Useless Lesbian™�� (/aff) Vanessa is madly pining for Annie and vise versa.

"I just think that women." - Vanessa at least once a day

Trevor

Pronouns: he/him

Orientation & gender identity: queer, binary trans man

As a certified trans man*, Trevor is a fucking trans man lmaoo. Just like, look at him. For his orientation, I was torn between gay and queer but ultimately decided on the latter cuz I can just see him working in a lot of different dynamics

Dennis

Pronouns: he/him

Orientation & gender identity: panromantic asexual, cis man

Personally, I just can't see Dennis as allosexual, but romantically, I think he'd be open to all genders

[theharrowing]

Hey babes.

Just wanted to chime in and share my experience with bi men lol (I found the anons take so interesting).

My experience is the total opposite of this anon, as a bi (somehow clostet woman at least). I’ve dated a bi guy like 6 years ago back when I was very ignorant and homophobic (I’m so ashamed of those days) and I thought I was strictly straight so I just rejected him. He then told me he had like 90% preferences for women only.

And since I’ve realized I’m bi I’ve dated few bi men here and there and they’ve all told me they had stronger preference. And since I have 0 chance of ever coming out lol I’m mostly open about it if someone brings up the topic so I’m always glad when I encounter a bi guy that is willing to be himself with me and let me trust him to open up.

So basically what I’m trying to say is all these men mostly told me that even though the women to men ratio wasn’t the same, it was almost easier to hook up with men. Men are easier and less complicated about these things and that straight women can be biphobic towards them (hurts me that I someday was that straight woman yikes 🥴).

Bisexual men are so precious to me and they deserve all the love and acceptance in the world. I’ll fight the world for them 🥹 and I hope bi men with strong preference for men are still valid and wanted and that they should never be questioned about their bisexuality and attraction for women💙💓💜

i think that, when we’re young and we don’t have things all the way figured out, we tend to be problematic. especially if we are grappling with our own feelings? when i was dealing with heavy gender dysphoria, before i knew i was non-binary (or agender or whatever, i still don't fully know how i feel in my skin and bones) i had some intrusive thoughts/feelings that i feel would have been transphobic. i don't even really know how to verbalize them, but i think it had to do with "passing" and "looking/acting" a certain way, because i had a lot of negative feelings about myself that i was projecting onto others (i never expressed these thoughts to anyone!!!!! i have always done my best to be understanding and a safe person for others. but the fact that i had these thoughts does haunt me.) and this is not to say that your experience is anything like that, but i think that for people grappling with these very personal feelings, there are often similar things going on.

going to put this under a cut bc my feelings are big.

gosh, it's been so long since i have heard anyone talk about their attraction on like a ratio basis, but i remember my ex girlfriend in college (the first time) making fun of me because i told her i thought i was "at least 75% attracted to women" alskdjaslkdjasljd like what does that even mean??? but i guess some people may look at it in terms of percentages. i am also interested in non-cis and non-binary people so i wouldn't be able to pie chart my feelings as easily. 😅😂

if we do speak in terms of mostly the gender binary, i think that bi men/amab who like women/fem-presenting people get the same amount of biphobia as bi women/afab who like men/masc.-presenting people, because i have only ever experienced it while dating men and masc-presenting people. and it's so so so frustrating like what part of "i am attracted to my gender and other genders" is hard to understand??? that includes literally anybody i want it to.

i don't know if pansexuals get this same kind of hate, but if you do, i am sorry and i love you.

BISEXUAL MEN ARE PRECIOUS TO ME. everyone is precious to me. cishets are on thin ice but if you show me that i can trust you and that i am safe with you, then you are precious to me too.

ALSO YOU JAZZY mentioned you can't come out, and i am sorry to see that. if you ever need to talk about anything, please dm me! day and night! i'll likely be awake!!! 💖💖💖

[hailmaryfullofgrace55675]

i don’t think this is a coherent objection to queer people redefining labels out of meaning anything in particular.

is “devaluing labels” an attempt to appeal to cishets? clearly that’s not what these people want or intend, so no. does it appeal to cishets? i’ve seen no evidence that any cishets are even aware of these intracommunity arguments, much less that they’re on any side, so i would say no.

is “saying that anyone can be queer” an attempt to appeals to cishets? no. does it appeal to cishets? no. cisheteronormativity demands that queerness be marginal and outcast, it does not value queerness and it does not motivate people to seek to be included in queerness.

in re: bigoted cishets and annoying queer people saying that lesbians can sleep with men, i don’t think that these people are meaningfully saying the same thing. “lesbians can sleep with men” can mean a lot of things. on the most literal level, it is simply true: lesbians are capable of having sex with men, there is nothing making it impossible for them to do so. if she wanted to earn money through sex work, or if it was the only way to stop a meteor hurtling toward earth, a lesbian could fuck a guy.

implicitly, when a lesbophobic straight person says “but lesbians can have sex with men”, what they mean is “a woman may say she’s exclusively attracted to other women, but maybe with enough time and/or badgering she will have sex with a guy, which is what i think she should do”. here, “lesbians can sleep with men” stands for “nobody is really exclusively f4f”.

when an advocate for bisexuals identifying as lesbian says “but lesbians can have sex with men”, what they mean is “a woman who has sex with men can legitimately and meaningfully identify as a lesbian”. this does not contradict exclusively-into-women lesbians being really exclusively into women or calling themselves lesbians, it just makes it harder for them to communicate that sexual orientation through the word lesbian. here, “lesbians can sleep with men” stands for “exclusive f4f orientation is not necessary for lesbian identity”

these are, in intended meaning and in community building-related impact, completely different statements. worth considering, also, is the long, shitty history of lesbian community including bi women and trans men, often in manners of bi and trans erasure. “lesbians can sleep with men” has also meant “lesbians can fuck trans men because they don’t count, if he has a pussy he’s female in the only way that matters”, “lesbians can fuck men as long as they keep it on the down low, you can have male lovers if they’re casual and you don’t bring them around”, and “lesbians can fuck men as long as they don’t admit they’re bisexual, it’s calling yourself the wrong name that will get you kicked out of the consciousness raising circle”.

just because something is annoying doesn’t make it heteronormative. it can be disruptive to useful queer dialogue in different ways. homegrown ways.

Hey isn't it crazy how radqueers who think labels don't mean anything call other lgbtq people cishet bootlickers when I've heard both them and bigoted cishets agree that lesbians can sleep with men? Isn't that the literal definition of trying to appeal to cishets, by devaluing labels and saying that anyone can be queer? Funny how that works.

[genderkoolaid]

also I feel like this analogy might help people. there are women who identified as lesbians, and then later came out as bisexual. These women were known to the people around them, including cishet men, as lesbians, and then later came out as bi and probably even dated some men! Maybe they even realized they were bisexual because they realized they were attracted to a specific man they started dating!

Now, a cishet man could see that and go, "See! Lesbians can just be bisexual, they just have to find the right guy! I can harass any lesbian I want because they secretly are attracted to men."

Now, I think most of us would agree that's bullshit. One lesbian coming out as bisexual doesn't mean all lesbians are secretly attracted to men, and it doesn't mean that bisexual women should go back in the closet to avoid giving lesbophobic cishet men a "valid reason" to be lesbophobic. That's stupid, it's not their fault, it's just that lesbophobes will find any excuse to justify their lesbophobia.

So why does that work when it's bisexual lesbians? Why is it that for some reason, they are responsible for other people's lesbophobia, and it's their responsibility to go back in the closet and change how they identify to try and control the actions of lesbophobes? Why is that something that's okay to say?

[bratzboykai]

I really do not understand where this whole idea of lesbians and bisexual women branching off into individual identities and communities being a bad thing stemmed from but god it frustrates me as a bi woman/bi person in general and as a person who loves many many of my awesome big sexy lesbians friends.

Bisexual women and lesbians may have congregated as the same group once but we're not anymore, and thats FINE and its actually a good thing! Because despite the overlap in experiences as women who are attracted to women (and yes I am including trans women when I say women), bisexual women and lesbians still have significant differences in experience and marginalization unique to their attraction that need to be addressed as separate communites because being aware of these differences provides a basis for us to tackle said issues in a way that is specifically conscious and adapted to our individual communities and forms of opression. God I hope that makes sense lol

Like as a WHOLE community we ALL have overlap in experiencing homophobia or bigotry directed as us for not conforming to gender and expression the way cis heteronormative society wants us to (i.e butch lesbians, effeminate gay men, trans/non binary people who do not pass/choose not to pass, etc) but we all as individual communities in one, face individual types of marginalization that we need to talk about so that those who don't experience it in the broader community and outside of it understand us.

For example cishet society hates lesbians for NOT being attracted to men and being attracted to women instead, it hates gay men for being attracted to men and not women, bisexuals are scrutinized for the fact that we have fluid attraction, trans folks but particularly trans women are hated for being women despite the assigned gender that society expects for them to conform to and at the same time intertwine that specific transphobia with misogyny which thusly creates transmisogyny (I'm sorry of I phrased this badly, I would absolutely appreciate correction!), etc. It is incredibly important that we acknowledge those specific and DIFFERENT experiences that we are targeted with because other wise it'd be like being blind to each others suffering.

And in the case of lesbian and bisexual women, trying to lump us in as one big group again erases the history of opression lesbians specifically face and fought for being women who do not show attraction to men and for being women who love women and take joy in sexual and romantic pleasure in loving women, and to do so proudly, despite societies insistence that women have to be with men. For bisexual women it creates and perpetuates the god awful attitude that bisexuality as an identity is simply not enough all in its own. It is yet another unnecessary ammendment made to bisexuality because y'all dont want to question the internalized issues you may have with it. Lesbianism excluding the attraction to men is not a threat to those of us who have attraction to women ALONG SIDE an attraction to men in ANY capacity, that is literally what bisexuality is for and that's ENOUGH!!! Some bisexuals are drawn more to women than men, but still acknowledge that part of them is still attracted to men and guess what, THAT'S STILL BISEXUALITY AND ITS FINE!!!! There is literally 0 need to impose an attraction to men on to lesbians like AT ALL and acting like we have to go back to being the same group does exactly that.

And to top it off, lesbianism does not exclude nonbinary folks and trans women just as bisexuality doesn't exclude nonbinary and trans people as a whole; trying to lump us in together with attraction to non binary people as an excuse is fucking stupid and gross. Because again, you're perpetuating the lesbophobic belief that all lesbians are trans exclusionist and the biphobic belief that bisexuals are transphobic and limited or binary in their attraction.

I of course haven't even touched on the specific difference of how bisexuality and lesbianism differ in terms of social impact such as ipv, addiction, depression, etc. There are lots of studies and statistics that show the numbers are different between us and even between us and the rest of the community! Being able to be separate respected communities allows us to see the impact of biphobia and lesbophobia as two specific forms of oppression and find the right kind if help and resources for us to heal as lesbian or bisexual women!!!

Do you like not literally see how trying to make us one big group with 0 acknowledgement of how significant our difference are is harmful?