#or that binary expression is still valid expression and does not denote gender identity | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

xclusivetism · 4 years ago

Text

Debunking ‘gender identity’ by gender ≠ sex.

Having gender identity may seem noble divergence from our gender rigid society, the solution to stop such and embrace self-expression.

However after examining it through, ‘gender identity’ the way the ideology says doesn’t really exist and actually still perpetuates gender conformity.

And no, there’s no need for “there’s only two sexes” or any science argument at all to disprove gender identity. Gender ideology so f l a w e d that it can do it perfectly itself out of any of above the fastest just by Gender ≠ sex.

You probably read many things that try to disprove gender and thought it was wrong or outdated that scientist have discover there’s people with XXXY.

But after reading this, If it doesn’t peak you or at least make you question gender, then i honestly really don’t know what will other than to call you deluded.

What is Gender

Gender ≠ sex is the essential foundation of gender.

To order to know the difference, we need to know what individually each are.

Gender is a social construct

Gender Identity

Gender expression

That means.

Sex is a physical construct

Sex

Sexual orientation

The first thing that instantly break Gender ≠ sex

“Sex is not binary, Sex is a spectrum or intersex exist”

That already outed you as a hypocrite especially when responding to “there’s only two sexes” saying that they’re conflating sex and gender.

Why should sex being binary or not be relevant to gender identity?

LGB and T are antithetical.

Since Gender ≠ Sex, LGB and T shouldn’t be consider one.

Sexuality is a Sexual orientation not a gender orientation, to suggest it means gender too is conflation.

For a trans-woman to say they’re lesbian or a trans-man to say they’re gay is incorrect & impossible because they’re straight. Gender identity doesn’t shift sexuality status because they’re separate things and to suggest so is homophobic. For a trans to say that invalidates their identity is another conflation of gender and sex.

LGB is a sex-based group while T is a gender-based group. One’s based on sexual attraction and the other is based on changing gender, they are absolutely nothing alike.

‘Cis’ is enough entitlement to be trans exclusive.

Terfs don’t like being called ‘Cis’

But let’s say they drop the belief that “transwomen aren’t real women” and say “transwomen aren’t ciswomen” and want spaces of their own

They put the ‘Cis’ prefix

Cis woman schools

Cis woman attracted

Cis woman bathroom

Cis woman sports

Cis woman locker rooms

Cis woman administrator

Cis woman health

Cis women history

etc.

Instead of saying “only women can breastfeed” they use “only AFAB can breastfeed”.

According to TRA logic, all that would be valid.

To for one to say that’s segregation, you would also have to believe separation of men and women or other types groups is segregation as well. A Cis person doesn’t have the trans experience and that goes the other way around.

‘Transwo/man’ is transphobic itself.

Gender ≠ Sex physical transitioning would be a conflation.

If it’s not a conflation, that would imply that physical features are social constructs which includes reproduction, sexuality etc.

Gender is a social construct, all you need to be a gender is identify.

Gender dysphoria is only a social dysphoria, if it’s about the physical then it’s really sex dysphoria. To say it isn’t is conflation.

But even identifying as a ‘wo/man’ itself also is transphobic because the meaning behind it is sex base.

the definition of wo/man.

Adult human fe/male being

What does fe/male mean?

(Female) of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

(Male) of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

One can go down in the definition to point that it also means this.

Relating to wo/men or the fe/male gender.

To say wo/man in the definition also refer to gender, isn’t that a conflation and breaking Gender ≠ Sex? My oh my so many usage of the word conflation.

Gender identity.

Non-binary is not a gender, nothing of it say it’s a gender. It’s just non-binary of something which is usually assumed of not being man or woman. But not being a man or woman doesn’t say of what it is only of what it is not. If the binary part is something else that mean a person who identifies as a woman or man (including cis) can be considered non-binary. Non-binary is really just a slot.

So far the solid identifies are

Man

Woman

Neutrois

Queer

Agender

Androgyne is both man and woman. Genderqueer wo/man is both of queer and wo/man. Pangender is all.

Everything else is either a flux, degree, combination of the above or based on a different concept. Things like such as bigender are umbrella because it doesn’t specify if it’s man or woman or something else.

That being said, the only one that’s truly gender non-conformist is agender. Queer is still gender conforming just not to man or woman.

What are the distinctive qualities of each identity?

It’s said that gender expression is different than identity and that someone who identifies as a boy can be very feminine still.

So we’re not gonna use association of masculinity, femininity etc. to define it then.

So what identity mean is it’s usually answered as someone’s ‘personal sense.’

If it’s a personal sense that mean it would be mean it’s a personal construct.

Personal or social construct regardless, it doesn’t say the characteristics. If you can’t point out what to define the labels become hallow.

There’s many things that aren’t concrete that can show one it’s existence.

An abstract thing like 1, can present it’s existence.

A thing we cannot fully see of like the 4D can present it’s existence.

Even pseudo scientific like zodiacs signs have specific qualities to describe, personality types and even religion has something to define.

In the means of gender, all the identities really sums down to meaningless labels. In the means of sex, the word woman or man are names for physical characteristics that is observed at birth.

Problem with “assigned gender identity at birth”

No one was “assigned” at birth, “cis” people don’t match what their doctors assign. Assign word implies duty and a job. Assign is often a thing that doesn’t always taking what the subject is to account, for example you being assigned to a seat is sometimes random and not based your rowdiness or attentiveness.

The doctor characterised people a ‘wo/man’ based on observing them. Woman and Man are distinguisher (just like fruits and veggies) of physical characteristics.

People are assigned a gender expression at life.

Gender identity doesn’t exist other than being a label, gender identity is based on sex hence that label. What’s assigned is actually gender expression.

What Society does

(Biology) Sex → gender identity ↓ ←gender expression (Society)

↓ Gender identity → gender roles

What TRAs think to solve it

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

Sex Ⓧ gender identity (society)

Sex → gender identity (different)

↓ gender identity (different) → sex → society → expression = gender roles

What Gender critical think to solve it

Sex → gender identity → gender expression→ society = gender roles

Putting it to perspective

Whenever GC say this:

Sex → gender identity

This is how TRAs view it:

gender identity ←gender expression (society)

Gender identity → gender roles

Sex ← gender identity (society)

↓

Sex → gender identity = gender roles

and thus GC = society pushing gender norm

and the TRA misses this:

→ gender expression→ society = gender roles

Gender ideology pushes gender conformity, just in backwards.

Society enforces femininity on women and masculinity on men to maintain a heteronormative hierarchy aka patriarchy.

Gender ideology is a patriarchal chest play to keep people from actually breaking such status quo by putting the gender role but backwards.

Societal gender roles

Women must be feminine

Men must be masculine

Gender ideology

Feminine is woman

Masculine is man

Neither is non-binary

Anything else it’s a new gender

‘Cis’ means comfortable of the societal gender role

‘Trans’ means not comfortable of societal gender role

GRA say expression is different from identity to hide the fact that it in a way still pushes gender conformity. They confuse the names for physical characteristics ‘wo/man’ as entire gender construct and expression.

Here’s the damage Gender ideology does.

So far GRA activist blur what sex and gender is, despite their gender ≠ sex.

Blurring gender and sex create problems for the LGB and women, by making anyone able to appropriates them by identification and transing so long as they feel it, remember these two groups are on the oppressed side. There isn’t even a qualification (not even dyphoria) to be considered trans. Growing kids & teen are getting into this as well ruining their bodies, ask yourselves how are they old enough to block puberty but not drink alcohol?

People’s motivation for why they want to of certain gender is not look thorough enough.

People in general again who again don’t fit with gender norms

Women with internal misogyny/trauma

Gay/Lesbian with internal homophobia/trauma

Men who want more access to women for misogynistic reasons.

You cannot ever feel something you cannot comprehend.

And you cannot ever comprehend not feeling it.

One’s thought of feeling or not like a boy/girl comes were form by the brain cells of XX or XY chromosome or whatever.

Here’s a color analogy i have to show case the difference between one who feels like wo/man vs someone who actually is.

Identifying as one.

Actually being one.

The gender dysphoric pandemic

The correct word for what people mean by gender dysphoria would be sex dysphoria people who are dysphoric of their physical sex body.

Sometimes transsexual need mechanical intervention to relief their sex dysphoria.

Most people who are ‘trans’ aren’t transsexual as that is rare and projecting the gender dysphoria to their bodies instead should be towards society. There’s some types of transwomen who have autogynephilia (reverse heterosexuality, which is nothing wrong in of itself but alot of them are doing bad with it) are motivated by sexuality and is projecting that thing of wanting to become the opposite sex.

Gender dysphoria

A lot of people in the world have gender dysphoria some in more degree than others.

Many movement where brought out because of gender dyshoria

LGB because gender roles often link to heteronormative.

Feminism/Women’s rights including the ‘Terfs’ is a inherently gender dysphoric movement.

Gender criticals are inherently gender dysphoric.

What trans movement doing is conflating gender dysphoria with sex dysphoria but they are actually perpetuating gender norms.

The only gender construct that matters is identity which is woman or man because that exist to distinguish people of certain biological characteristics. “Masculinity” and “Femininity” isn’t real, they’re just many expressions boxed into one or the other enforce to people into gender roles which are by large hierarchy called patriarchy. If there is natural patterns that’s sex behavior.

Most people in the trans community aren’t bad, they’re being exploited by the people who are bad. The people who are bad are motivated to destroy children, LGB and women’s rights, depressedly under all this is essentially a men’s right movement but left wing. We need to take those men (and few women) with evil intent to account now.

Right leaning and traditional etc. people role in this whole thing.

Conservative/traditionalist/religious people who claim to be gender critical, are most of times far from it and are in fact gender rights activist but trans critical that’s the only different between them and the bad trans people above. The trans movement is mostly a side-effect and these people are kinda the reason for it. Gender roles are toxic considering that people especially have to resort in changing their bodies for not fitting in and the gender ideology is a outlet.

So it’s pure insanity conservative/traditionalist/religious people to keep insisting that be men masculine and women be feminine and that’s it’s all fine and fail to acknowledge, comprehend or disregard people who are gender dysphoric to those roles (feminism being the biggest example) making them seem pathological abnormalities when complaining about them.

There’s truly a lot of people who are non-conformist but were too scared to be themselves because people like them and it has been rampant for thousand of years. They use not seeing alot of them as prove to enforce their patriarchal rhetoric.

Conclusion

What people need to talk about is their gender dysphoria (but not ideology kind) but of the roles in society. Let transsexuals be their own group without the gender nonsense in peace. We need start embracing gender non-conformity without needing to change our biological identity.

#gender #gender identity #gender noncomformity #gender critical #lgbt #liberal #liberal feminism #feminism #women's rights #trans exclusionary radical feminist #radical feminism #society #gender roles #patriarchy

21 notes · View notes

hellomynameisbisexual · 5 years ago

Text

As a nonbinary bisexual, I’m no stranger to people erasing me and telling me that I’m something I’m not. With the rise of terms like “pansexuality” and “omnisexuality,” many people unfamiliar with the true nature of bisexuality now think that it’s transphobic or otherwise binary — some go so far as to claim bisexuals only believe in two genders.

People assert that, while bisexuality allegedly means “attraction to two genders,” pansexuality and omnisexuality, unlike bisexuality, denote “attraction to all genders.” It’s easy to think this way if only examining the terms at face value, but this comparison is an outright lie. Some others say that new labels were a response to transphobic exclusion from the bisexual community — this is similarly not the case. (I’ll be compiling a piece on the history of the “pansexual” label at a later date.) Using this “reasoning” to separate bisexuality from these other terms is woefully inaccurate and disrespectful to bisexual and transgender people.

While there are cissexist definitions of bisexuality, that holds true for “gay” and “straight,” too. Bisexuals have also described our orientation as attraction regardless of gender¹ for decades — at least fifty years or so — and we still do. Before words like “transgender” and “nonbinary” came about, bisexuals still often saw themselves as attracted to people beyond gender.

Androgyny and gender-nonconformity are also a staple in bisexual culture. Major bisexual icons throughout history explored and embraced it. Look at bisexual chic, especially the glam rock era. Some bisexual activists and organizations have historically included and allied with transgender and nonbinary people, and many of us are transgender or nonbinary ourselves.

Below are just a few examples of the hidden secret of our gender-expansiveness. (Including a quote here does not equal my approval of what was said. Keep in mind the times during which they were recorded as well as the footnotes.)

Sources without links can be downloaded for free from ZLibrary, borrowed from the Open Library, or found wherever you purchase or borrow physical books. Sources without a year next to them are those for which I could not find the publish date.

“…the very wealth and humanity of bisexuality itself: for to exclude from one’s love any entire group of human beings because of class, age, or race or religion, or sex, is surely to be poorer — deeply and systematically poorer.”

— Kate Miller (1974)

“It’s easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and that’s the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not genders…”

— Martin Duberman (1974)

“Margaret Mead in her Redbook magazine column wrote an article titled ‘Bisexuality: What’s It All About?’ in which she cited examples of bisexuality from the distant past as well as recent times, commenting that writers, artists, and musicians especially ‘cultivated bisexuality out of a delight with personality, regardless of race or class or sex.’”

— Janet Bode, “From Myth to Maturation,” View From Another Closet: Exploring Bisexuality in Women (1976)

“Being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.”

— Janet Bode, “The Pressure Cooker,” View From Another Closet (1976)

“A sex-change night club queen has claimed she had a bizarre love affair with rock superstar David Bowie. Drag artiste Ronny Haag said she lived with the bisexual singer while he was making his new film, “Just a Gigolo,” in Berlin. […] Ronny says: ‘I am a real woman.’”

— Kenelm Jenour, “I Was Bowie’s She-Man!”, Daily Mirror (1978)²

“[John] reacted emotionally to both sexes with equal intensity. ‘I love people, regardless of their gender,’ he told me.”

— Charlotte Wolff, “Early Influences,” Bisexuality, a Study (1979)

“On Saturday, February 9, San Francisco’s Bisexual Center will conduct a Gender/Sexuality Workshop. ‘We will explore the interrelationships of gender feelings and sexual preference… We will discuss sexuality and whether we choose to play out the gender role assigned to us by society or whether we can shift to attitudes supposedly held by the opposite gender, if those feel good to us. We will deal with the issue of the TV/TS [transvestite/transsexual] in transition and how sexuality evolves as gender role changes. We will attempt to present a summary of the fragmented and confusing information on gender and sexuality.’”

— The Gateway (1980)

“J: Are we ever going to be able to define what bisexuality is?

S: Never completely. That’s just it — the variety of lifestyles that we see between us defies definition.”

— “Conversations,” Bi Women: The Newsletter of the Boston Bisexual Women’s Network (1984)

“Bisexuality, however, is a valid sexual experience. While many gays have experienced bisexuality as a stage in reaching their present identity, this should not invalidate the experience of people for whom sexual & affectional desire is not limited by gender. For in fact many bisexuals experience lesbianism or homosexuality as a stage in reaching their sexual identification.

— Megan Morrison, “What We Are Doing,” Bi Women (1984)

“In the midst of whatever hardships we [bisexuals] had encountered, this day we worked with each other to preserve our gift of loving people for who they are regardless of gender.”

— Elissa M., “Bi Conference,” Bi Women (1985)

“I believe that people fall in love with individuals, not with a sex… I believe most of us will end up acknowledging that we love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.”

— Ruth Hubbard, “There Is No ‘Natural’ Human Sexuality, Bi Women (1986)

“I am bisexual because I am drawn to particular people regardless of gender. It doesn’t make me wishy-washy, confused, untrustworthy, or more sexually liberated. It makes me a bisexual.”

— Lani Ka’ahumanu, “The Bisexual Community: Are We Visible Yet?” (1987)

“To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.”

— Office Pink Publishing, “Introduction,” Bisexual Lives (1988)

“We made signs and slashes. My favorite read, ‘When it’s love in all its splendor, it doesn’t matter what the gender.’”

— Beth Reba Weise, “Being There and Being Bi: The National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights,” Bi Women (1988)

“…bisexual usually also implies that relations with gender minorities are possible.”

— Thomas Geller, Bisexuality: a Reader and Sourcebook (1990)

“Many objections have been raised to the use of [“bisexual”], the most common being that it emphasizes two things that, paradoxically, bisexuals are the least likely to be involved with: the dualistic separation of male and female in society, and the physical implications of the suffix ‘-sexual’.”

— Thomas Geller, Bisexuality: a Reader and Sourcebook (1990)

“Bisexuality is a whole, fluid identity. Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in nature: that we have ‘two’ sides or that we must be involved simultaneously with both genders to be fulfilled human beings. In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.”

— The Bay Area Bisexual Network, “The 1990 Bisexual Manifesto,” Anything That Moves (1990)

“Bisexuality works to subvert the gender system and everything it upholds because it is not based on gender… Bisexuality subverts gender; bisexual liberation also depends on the subversion of gender categories.”

— Karin Baker and Helen Harrison, “Letters,” Bi Women (1990)

“I tell them, whether or not I use the word ‘bisexual,’ that I am proud of being able to express my feelings toward a person, regardless of gender, in whatever way I desire.”

— Naomi Tucker, “What’s in a Name?”, Bi Any Other Name (1991)³

“Some women who call themselves ‘bisexual’ insist that the gender of their lover is irrelevant to them, that they do not choose lovers on the basis of gender.”

— Marilyn Murphy, “Thinking About Bisexuality,” Bi Women (1991)

“Results supported the hypothesis that gender is not a critical variable in sexual attraction in bisexual individuals. Personality or physical dimensions not related to gender and interaction style were the salient characteristics on which preferred sexual partners were chosen, and there was minimal grid distance between preferred male and preferred female partners. These data support the argument that, for some bisexual individuals, sexual attraction is not gender-linked. […] …the dimensions which maximally separate most preferred sexual partners are not gender-based in seven of the nine grids.”

— M W Ross, J P Paul, “Beyond Gender: The Basis of Sexual Attraction in Bisexual Men and Women” (1992)

“[S]ome bisexuals say they are blind to the gender of their potential lovers and that they love people as people… For the first group, a dichotomy of genders between which to choose doesn’t seem to exist[.]”

— Kathleen Bennett, “Feminist Bisexuality, a Both/And Option for an Either/Or World,” Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism (1992)

“The expressed desires of [female bisexual] respondents differed in many cases from their experience. 37 respondents preferred women as sexual partners; 9 preferred men. 21 women had no preference, and 35 said they preferred sex with particular individuals, regardless of gender.”

— Sue George, “Living as bisexual,” Women and Bisexuality (1993)

“Who is this group for exactly? Anyone who identifies as bisexual or thinks they are attracted to or interested in all genders… This newly formed [support] group is to create a supportive, safe environment for people who are questioning their sexual orientation and think they may be bisexual.”

— “Coming Out as Bisexual,” Bi Women (1994)

“It is logical and necessary for bisexuals to recognize the importance of gender politics — not just because transsexuals, cross-dressers, and other transgender people are often assumed to be bisexual… […] I have talked to the bisexual practicers of pre-op transsexuals who feel they have the best of both worlds because their lover embodies woman and man together.² Is that not a connection between bisexuality and transgenderism? […] Some of us are bisexual because we do not pay much attention to the gender of our attractions; some of us are bisexual because we do see tremendous gender differences and want to experience them all. […] With respect to our integrity as bisexuals, it is our responsibility to include transgendered people in our language, in our communities, in our politics, and in our lives.”

— Naomi Tucker, “The Natural Next Step,” Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions (1995)

“The first wave of people who started the Bi Center were political radicals and highly motivated people. The group was based on inclusivity… for example, in the women’s groups, anybody who identified as a woman had the right to be there, so a lot of transgender people started coming to the Bi Center.”

— Naomi Tucker, “Bay Area Bisexual History: An Interview with David Lourea,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“[B]isexual consciousness, because of its amorphous quality and inclusionary nature, posed a fundamental threat to the dualistic and exclusionary thought patterns which were — and still are — tenaciously held by both the gay liberation leadership and its enemies.”

— Stephen Donaldson, “The Bisexual Movement’s Beginnings in the 70s,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“If anything, being bi has made me hyper-aware of the sexual differences between [men and women]. And I still get hot for both. But I do experience something that is similar to gender blindness. It’s this: being bisexual means I could potentially find myself sexually attracted to anybody. Therefore, as a bisexual, I don’t make the distinction that monosexuals do between the gender you fuck and the gender you don’t.”

— Greta Christina, “Bi Sexuality,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“[A]nd too / I am bisexual / in my history / in my capacity / in my fantasies / in my abilities / in my love for beautiful people / regardless of gender.”

— Dajenya, “Bisexual Lesbian,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“The bisexual community should be a place where lines are erased. Bisexuality dismisses, disproves, and defies dichotomies. It connotes a loss of rigidity and absolutes. It is an inclusive term. […] Despite how we choose to identify ourselves, the bisexual community still seems a logical place for transsexuals to find a home and a voice. Bisexuals need to educate themselves on transgender issues. At the same time, bisexuals should be doing education and outreach to the transsexual community, offering transsexuals an arena to further explore their sexualities and choices. Such outreach would also help break down gender barriers and misconceptions within the bisexual community itself. […] If the bisexual community turns its back on transsexuals, it is essentially turning its back on itself.”

— K. Martin-Damon, “Essay for the Inclusion of Transsexuals,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“As bisexuals, we are necessarily prompted to come up with non-binary ways of thinking about sexual orientation. For many of us, this has also prompted a move toward non-binary ways of thinking about sex and gender.”

— Rebecca Kaplan, “Your Fence Is Sitting on Me: The Hazards of Binary Thinking,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“And so we love each other and wish love for each other, regardless (to the extent possible) of gender and sex.”

— Oma Izakson, “If Half of You Dodges a Bullet, All of You Ends Up Dead,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“Similarly, the modern bisexual movement has dissolved the strict dichotomy between ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ (without invalidating our homosexual or heterosexual friends and lovers.) We have insisted on our desire and freedom to love people of all genders.”

— Sunfrog, “Pansies Against Patriarchy,” Bisexual Politics (1995)

“In the bisexual movement as a whole, transgendered individuals are celebrated not only as an aspect of the diversity of the bisexual community, but because, like bisexuals, they do not fit neatly into dichotomous categories. Jim Frazin wrote that ‘the construction and destruction of gender’ is a subject of mutual interest to bisexuals and transsexuals who are, therefore, natural allies.”

— Paula C. Rust, Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty, and Revolution (1995)

“Is bisexuality even about gender at all? ‘I don’t desire a gender,’ 25[-]year-old Matthew Ehrlich says.”

— Deborah Block-Schwenk, “Newsweek Comes Out as Supportive,” Bi Women (1995)

“One woman expressed the desire to elide categorical differences by reporting that she finds ‘relationships with men and women to be quite similar — the differences are in the individuals, not in their sex.’ Others expressed their ideal as choosing partners ‘regardless of gender…’”

— Amber Ault, Ambiguous Identity in an Unambiguous Sex/Gender Structure: The Case of Bisexual Women (1996)

“Most conceptual models of bisexuality explain it in terms of conflictual or confused identity development, [r-slur] sexual development, or a defence against ‘true’ heterosexuality or homosexuality. It has been suggested, however, that some individuals can eroticize more than one love object regardless of gender, that sexual patterns could be more variable and fluid than theoretical notions tend to allow, and that sexual desire may not be as fixed and static in individuals as is assumed by ‘essential’ sexual categories and identities.”

— E.Antonio de Moya and Rafael García, “AIDS and the Enigma of Bisexuality in the Dominican Republic,” Bisexualities and AIDS: International Perspectives (1996)

“I’m bi. That simply means I can be attracted to a person without consideration of their gender.”

— E. Grace Noonan, “Out on the Job: DEC Open to Bi Concerns,” Bi Women (1996)

“BiCon should accept transgender people as being on their chosen gender, this includes any single gender events.”

— BiCon Guidelines (1998)⁴

“The probability is that your relationship is based on, or has nestled itself into something based more on the relationship between two identities than on the relationship between two people. That’s what we’re taught: man/man, woman/woman, woman/man, top/bottom, butch/femme, man/woman/man, etc. We’re never taught person/person. That’s what the bisexual movement has been trying to teach us. We’re never taught that, so we fall into the trap of ‘you don’t love me, you love my identity.’”

— Kate Bornstein, My Gender Workbook (1998)

“Transsexuality and bisexuality both occupy heretical thresholds of human experience. We confound, illuminate and explore border regions. We challenge because we appear to break inviolable laws. Laws that feel ‘natural.’ And quite possibly, since we are not the norm or even average, it is likely that one function we have is to subvert those norms or laws; to break down the sleepy and unimaginative law of averages.”

— Max Wolf Valerio, “The Joker Is Wild: Changing Sex + Other Crimes of Passion,” Anything That Moves (1998)

“From the earliest years of the bi community, significant numbers of TV/TS and transgender people have always been involved with it. The bi community served as a kind of refuge for people who felt excluded from the established gay and lesbian communities.”

— Kevin Lano, “Bisexuality and Transgenderism,” Anything That Moves (1998)

“A large group of bisexual women reported in a Ms. magazine article that when they fell in love it was with a person rather than a gender…”

— Betty Fairchild and Nancy Hayward, “What is Gay?”, Now that You Know: A Parents’ Guide to Understanding Their Gay and Lesbian Children (1998)

“Over the past fifteen years, however, [one Caucasian man] has realized that he is ‘attracted to people — not their sexual identity’ and no longer cares whether his partners are male or female. He has kept his Bi identity and now uses it to refer to his attraction to people regardless of their gender.”

— Paula C. Rust, “Sexual Identity and Bisexual Identities,” Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology (1998)

“Bisexual — being emotionally and physically attracted to all genders.”

— The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, “Out of the Past: Teacher’s Guide” (1999)

“There were a lot of transvestites and transsexuals who came to [the San Francisco Bisexual Center in the 1970s], because they were not going to be turned away because of the way they dressed.”

— David Lourea, “Bisexual Histories in San Francisco in the 1970s and Early 1980s,” 2000 Journal of Bisexuality

“Respondent #658 said that both are irrelevant; ‘who I am sexually attracted to has nothing to do with their sex/gender,’ whereas Respondent #418 focuses specifically on the irrelevance of sex: I find myself attracted to either men or women. The outside appendages are rather immaterial, as it is the inner being I am attracted to. […] Respondent #495 recalled that “the best definition I’ve ever heard is someone who is attracted to people & gender/sex is not an issue or factor in that attraction.” […] As Respondent #269 put it, “I do not exclude a person from consideration as a possible love interest on the basis of sex/gender.” […] For most individuals who call themselves bisexual, bisexual identity reflects feelings of attraction, sexual and otherwise, toward women and men or toward other people regardless of their gender.”

— Paula C. Rust, “Two Many and Not Enough: The Meanings of Bisexual Identities,” 2000 Journal of Bisexuality

“Giovanni’s distinction between what he wants and who he wants resonates with the language of many of today’s bisexuals, who insist that they fall in love with a person, not a gender.”

— Marjorie Garber, Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (2000)

“The message of bisexuality — that people are more than their gender; that we accept all people, regardless of Kinsey scale rating; that we embrace people regardless of age, weight, clothing, hair style, gender expression, race, religion and actually celebrate our diversity — that message is my gospel. I travel, write, do web sites — all to let people know that the bisexual community will accept you, will let you be who you are, and will not expect you to fit in a neat little gender/sexuality box.”

— Wendy Curry, “Celebrating Bisexuality,” Bi Women (2000)

“But really, just like I can’t believe in the heterosexist binary gender system, I have difficulty accepting wholeheartedly any one spiritual tradition.”

— Anonymous, “A Methodical Awakening,” Bi Women (2002)

“But there are also many bis, such as myself, for whom gender has no place in the list of things that attract them to a person. For instance, I like people who are good listeners, who understand me and have interests similar to mine, and I am attracted to people with a little padding here and there, who have fair skin and dark hair (although I’m pretty flexible when it comes to looks). ‘Male’ or ‘female’ are not anywhere to be found in the list of qualities I find attractive.”

— Karin Baker, “Bisexual Basics,” Solidarity-us.org (2002)

“Bisexual: A person who is attracted to people regardless of gender (a person does not have to have a relationship to be bisexual!)”

— Bowling Green State University, “Queer Glossary” (2003)

“The bisexual community seems to be disappearing. Not that there won’t always be people around who like to have sex with people of all genders, the community, as I’ve discussed in this book, is a different matter altogether.”

— William Burleson, Bi America: Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community (2005)

“Although bisexuals in general may or may not be more enlightened about gender issues, there has been, and continues to be, in most places around the country a strong connection between the transgender and the bisexual communities. Indeed, the two communities have been strong allies. Why is this? One reason certainly is, as I mentioned earlier, the significant number of people who are both bisexual and transgender.”

— William Burleson, Bi America: Myths, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible Community (2005)

“Amy: […] But my friend’s question got me thinking: given the fact that so many bisexual friends and community members reject the idea that gender has to have a relation to attraction and behavior, why should I reject the bi label? Why did her question even come up? How relevant is gender to the concept of bisexuality? If bisexuals like me don’t care about gender the way monosexuals do, why would my identity label exclude my lovers’ gender variations?

Kim: …Like you, I’m a bi person who sees gender as fluid rather than fixed or dichotomous… I’ve also felt outside pressure to reject my bi identity based on the idea that it perpetuates the gender binary: woman/man. However, this idea reduces bisexual to ‘bi’ and ‘sexual’ and disregards the fact that it represents a history, a community, a substantial body of writing, and the right of the bisexual community to define ‘bisexuality’ on its own terms. Most importantly, this idea disregards how vital these things are for countless bi people. Identifying as bi doesn’t inherently mean anything, and it definitely doesn’t mean a person only recognizes two genders. However, to assume that bi-identified people exclude transgender, gender nonconforming (GNC), and genderqueer people also assumes they are not trans, GNC, or genderqueer themselves, when in fact, many are.”

— Kim Westrick and Amy Andre, “Semantic Wars,” Bi Women (2009)

“The [intracommunity biphobia] problem is very serious, because bisexuals, along with trans folks, are the rejects among rejects, that is to say, those who suffer from discrimination (gays and lesbians) discriminate against bis and trans folks. It is for this reason, at least here in Mexico City, that Opción Bi allies itself with transsexuals, transgender people and transvestites, and works together with them whenever possible. It seems to me we are closer to the trans communities than to the lesbian and gay ones.”

— Robyn Ochs, “Bis Around the World: Myriam Brito, Mexican City,” Bi Women (2009)

“I introduce myself as bisexual, because I am attracted to people, across gender lines, and ‘bisexual’ comes closest to explaining that.”

— B.J. Epstein, “Bye Bi Labels,” Bi Women (2009)

“Bisexuality is not some kind of middle-ground between heterosexuality and homosexuality; rather I imagine it as a way to erode the fixed systems of gender and sexual identity which always result in guilt, fear, lies[,] and discrimination.”

— Carlos Iván Suárez García, “What Is Bisexuality?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)⁵

“To me, bisexuality is a matter of loving and accepting everyone equally — seeing the beauty in the human soul, rather than in the shell that houses it. Being transgender, I know firsthand that love between two people can transcend — even embrace — what society regards as taboo. Bisexuality is a mindset of revolution, a mindset of change. We’re creating a brave new world of acceptance and love for all people, of all the myriad genders and methods of sexual expression that this world contains.

— Jessica, “What Is Bisexuality?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“Bisexuality (whatever that means) for me is about the ability to relate to all people at a deep emotional level. It is an openness of the heart. It is the absence of limits, especially those that are defined by the other person’s sex.”

— Andrea Toselli, “Coming Out Bisexual,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“Considering my personal preferences, calling myself ‘bisexual’ covers a wider territory regarding my capacity to fall in love and to share the life of a couple with another person without taking into consideration questions of gender.”

— Aida, “Why Bi?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“I’m sure I’m bisexual because I can’t ignore the allure and loveliness of a wide spectrum of people — differentiating by gender never seemed attractive or even logical to me. […] For me bisexuality means I don’t stop attraction, caring or relationship potential based on gender; I can have sex, flirtation or warm ongoing love with anyone (not everyone, okay? That part’s a myth). […] And we have enough trouble splitting the human race into two halves, assigning mandatory characteristics, and then torturing people to fill arbitrary roles — I consider that a wrong and inaccurate way to understand human potential, and that’s also why I’m bi. Men and women are different? Honey, everyone I’ve ever met has been different. I think being bisexual lets me see each person as an individual.”

— Carol Queen, “Why Bi?”, Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“But to hell with respectability: the real point about being bisexual, a friend pointed out, is that you’re asking someone other than ‘What sex is this person?’”

— Tom Robinson, “Bisexual Community,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“Being bisexual… allows us to love each other regardless of our gender…”

— Jorge Pérez Castiñeira, “Bisexual Community,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“‘Hello, my name is Jaqueline Applebee… if you want to see me later, or just want a kiss, let me know as I’m bisexual, and you’re all gorgeous!’ […] I have loved men, women, and those who don’t identify with any gender.”

— Jaqueline Applebee, “Bisexual Community,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“[T]here’s nothing binary about bisexuals. Bi is just a provisional term reminding us, however awkwardly, that when it comes to loving, family and tribe, margins and middle intertwine.”

— Loraine Hutchins, “Bisexual Politics,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“My bi identity is not about who I am having sex with; it is not about the genitals of my past, current, or future lovers; it is not about choosing potential partners or excluding partners based on what is between their legs. It is about potential — the potential to love, to be attracted to, to be intimate with, share a life with a person because of who they are. I see a person, not a gender… I demand to be free to legally marry anyone without regard to their gender.”

— Rifka Reichler, “Bisexual Politics,” Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World, Second Edition (2009)

“To me, being bisexual means having a sexuality that isn’t limited by the sex or gender of the people you are attracted to. You just recognize that you can be attracted to a person for very individual reasons.”

— Deb Morley, “Bi of the Month: An Interview with Ellyn Ruthstorm,” Bi Women (2010)

“Q: Which gender person does a bisexual love? A: Any gender she wants.”

— Marcia Deihl, “Do Clothes Make the Woman?”, Bi Women (2010)

“While the bisexual manifesto being written following a workshop at London BiCon is still being worked on, the tweeters set to work on a shorter, snappier alternative… ‘Love is about what’s in your hearts, not your underwear.’ […] ‘We aren’t more confused, greedy, indecisive or lustful than anyone else. We like people based on personality not gender.’ ‘[W]e believe that lust is more important than anatomy.’ ‘What you have between your legs doesn’t matter. What you have between your ears does[.]’”

— Jen Yockney, “#bisexualmanifesto,” Bi Community News (2010)

“As briefly mentioned above and interlinked with the notion of ‘importance of individuality’, the binary concepts of gender and the stereotypes surrounding these is a notion which each of the [bisexual] women interviewed fundamentally reject. The participants here were keen to distance themselves and their experiences of romantic relationships from any notion of hetero-normative gender boundaries, although they did agree that unfortunately these gender boundaries still exist in contemporary society. Most participants do not link gender boundaries with concepts of romantic love; it was stated that although sometimes gender boundaries can be seen in romantic relationships this is primarily down to socialisation and the unnecessary importance that hetero-normative society places on gender roles. Therefore, gender boundaries seen in romantic relationships are not constrained by gender but instead are a product of gendered socialisation. For these women, claiming their bisexual identity and their romantic relationships illustrates the futility of binary concepts of gender as it is about individual preference or style rather than gendered norms values and expectations.”

— Emma Smith, “Bisexuality, Gender & Romantic Relationships,” Bi Community News (2012)

“And anyway, I’m generally not sexually attracted to men or women. I’m into all sorts of things, but a person being a man or a woman isn’t a turn-on. Certainly not in the same way it’s a turn off to a gay or straight person. I’m never going to think “Wow, Zie is really sexy, shame they’re a ____” because what turns me off isn’t gender.”

— Marcus, “What makes a bisexual?”, Bi Community News (2012)

“I am bisexual. That does not depend on my dating experience or my attraction specifications. It is not affected by my dislike for genitals (of any shape). All it describes is how gender affects attraction for me: it doesn’t. I am attracted to people regardless of gender, and I am bisexual.”

— Emma Jones, “Not Like the Others,” Bi Women (2013)

“I’m generally okay with ‘attraction to more than one gender’ [as a definition of ‘bisexuality’]. I think that the ‘more than’ part is important because there are definitely more than two genders. Some people like the definition ‘attraction regardless of gender’ and I like that too because it suggests that things other than gender can be equally, or more, important in who we are attracted to. I like to question why our idea of sexuality is so bound up with gender of partners. Why not encompass other aspects such as the roles we like to take sexually, or how active or passive we like to be, or what practices we enjoy? Why is our gender, and the gender of our partners, seen as such a vital part of who we are?”

— Robyn Ochs, “Around the World: Meg Barker,” Bi Women (2013)

“It may sound crazy but I’d never thought that carefully about the ‘bi’ part of the word meaning ‘two’. I’d always understood bisexuality to mean what Bobbie Petford reports as the preferred definition from within the UK bi communities: changeable ‘sexual and emotional attraction to people of any sex, where gender may not be a defining factor’. […] Participants in the BiCon discussion rejected the ‘you are a boy or you are a girl…binary’ (Lanei), all arguing that they were not straightforwardly ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’.

[…] Because they discarded the dichotomous understanding of gender, participants rejected the ideas that they were attracted to ‘both’ men and women, arguing that they did not perceive gender as the defining feature in their attraction. Kim said: I don’t think actually gender is that relevant…gender is like eye colour, and I notice it sometimes, and sometimes it can be a bit of a feature it’s like “oo, that’s nice” and I have some sorts of gender types, but it’s about as important as something like eye colour.

[…] As I came to realise that you can actually be bisexual…your desires and your attractions can wax and wane as time goes on, I realised that there was a parallel to gender: you don’t have to clearly define, you don’t have to cast off the male to be female and vice versa. Despite the fact that the conventional definition of the word ‘bisexual’ could be seen as perpetuating a dichotomous concept of gender, being attracted to both sexes, Georgina concluded that it could challenge conventional understandings of gender…”

— “Bisexuality & Gender,” Bi Community News (2014)

“My fellow bisexuals… I stand before you as an unapologetic, outspoken, bisexual activist who has intimately loved women, men and transgender persons throughout my life span of 72 years…”

— ABilly S. Jones-Hennin, “If Loving You is Wrong, Then I Don’t Want to be Right,” Bisexual Organizing Project (2014)

“Coming out as bisexual in the late 80s, when I first came across the label pansexual it didn’t involve any kind of gender nuance: it was how someone explained their bisexuality feeling interwoven with their Pagan beliefs. Back then the ‘bi’ in bisexual didn’t get talked about as having some great limiting weight of ‘two’, it was an “and” in a world that saw things as strictly either/or. As I was pushing at boundaries of discussion around gender and sexuality with people in the 90s I’d sometimes quip that I was ‘bisexual, I just haven’t decided which two genders yet’. When I started to come across people saying that bi was limiting because it meant two, a bit of me did think: oh lord, were they taking me seriously?”

— Jen, “Bi or Pan?”, Bi Community News (2015)

“Pansexuality is sometimes defined as attraction to people of all genders, which is also the experience of many bisexual people. More often than not, however, people define their pansexuality in relation to bisexuality. In response to the question: ‘What does pansexual mean?’ I’ve seen countless people reply: ‘I’m attracted to people of more than two genders. Not bisexual.’ The implication is that bisexual means binary attraction: men and women only.

Since I came out in the late 90s, I haven’t seen one bi activist organisation define bisexuality as attraction solely to men and women. Bi and trans* issues began to grow in recognition at the same time. When I use ‘bi’ to refer to two types of attraction, I mean attraction to people of my gender and attraction to people of other genders. […] …it’s so upsetting to see internalised biphobia leading many pansexuals, many of whom until recently identified as bisexual, telling us we’re still not queer enough. Gay and straight people aren’t being pressurised into giving up the language they use to describe their attractions and neither should they be. As usual it’s only bisexuals being shamed into erasing our identities and our history.

The most frustrating thing to me about the current bi vs pan discourse is that it’s framed as a cisgender vs genderqueer debate. This has never been the case. In reality, many genderqueer people identify as bisexual… To say bisexuality is binary erases the identities of these revolutionary bisexual genderqueer activists, and it erases the identity of every marginalised genderqueer bisexual they’re fighting for.”

— Sali, “Bi or Pan?”, Bi Community News (2015)

“Currently some pansexual people argue that bi is ‘too binary’ and that bisexuals are focused on conventional male/female gender expressions only. This is then taken to mean that bisexuals are more transphobic, whereas pansexuals aren’t locked into a binary so they are open to all gender expressions. However we believe this is not the case since bisexuals: ‘… do not comply with our society’s imposed framework of attraction, we must consciously construct our own framework and examine how and why we are attracted (or not) to others. This process automatically acknowledges the artificiality of the gender binary and gendered norms and expectations for behavior. Indeed, the mere act of explaining our definition of bisexual to a nonbisexual person requires us to address the falsity of the gender binary head on.’

We do not deny that in actuality some bisexuals are too bound by traditional binary gender assumptions, just as many gay, lesbian, and heterosexual, and some trans people are too. Bisexuals, however, have been in the forefront of exploring desire and connection beyond sex and gender. When anyone accuses bisexuals, uniquely, as more binary and more transphobic than other identity groups, such targeting is not only inappropriate but is also rooted in biphobia — a fear and hatred of bi people for who we are and how we love.

Confusing the issue are the definitions in resource glossaries defining bisexual, most surprisingly in newly released books including textbooks. [...] These definitions arbitrarily define bisexual in a binary way and then present pansexual as a non-binary alternative. This opens the doorway to a judgment that pansexual identity is superior to bisexual identity because it ‘opens possibilities’ and is a ‘more fluid and much broader form of sexual orientation’. This judgmental conclusion is unacceptable and dangerous as it lends itself to perpetuating bisexual erasure. The actual lived non-binary history of the bisexual community and movement and the inclusive nature and community spirit of bisexuals are eradicated when a binary interpretation of our name for ourselves is arbitrarily assumed.”

— Lani Ka’ahumanu and Loraine Hutchins, “Bi Organizing Since 1991,” Bi Any Other Name (New 25th Anniversary Edition) (2015)

“Herself a bisexual woman, [Nan Goldin] found that drag queens, to her a third gender, were perfect companions. By transgressing the bounds of the binary, they had created identities that were infinitely more meaningful.”

— Alicia Diane Ridout, “Gender Euphoria: Photography, Fashion, and Gender Nonconformity in The East Village” (2015)

“It is the job of those of us with links to children to continue to promote the language of bisexuality and validity of attraction to all genders — especially when that attraction changes over time.”

— Bethan, “Practical Bi Awareness: Teaching and LGBT,” Bi Community News (2016)

“The persistent use of the Kinsey Scale is another issue. Originally asking about the genders of people you have had sex with, more recently it gets deployed in more sophisticated ways which distinguish between sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and sexual activity. Nonetheless it is woefully inadequate in accounting for attraction to genders other than male and female — a key part of many bisexual people’s experience.”

— Milena Popova, “Scrap the Kinsey Scale!”, Bi Community News (2016)

“Robyn Ochs states where the EuroBiCon also stands for: bisexuality goes beyond the binary gender thinking. There are more genders than the obsolete idea of two: male and female.”

— Erwin, “Robyn Ochs: ‘Bisexuality goes beyond the binary gender thinking’,” European Bisexual Conference (2016)

“I call myself bisexual because it includes attraction to all genders (same as mine; different from mine).”

— Rev. Francesca Bongiorno Fortunato, “Label Me With a B,” Bi Women Quarterly (2016)

“Loving a person rather than a man or a woman: this is Runa Wehrli’s philosophy. At 18, she defines herself as bisexual and speaks about it openly. […] She believes that love should not be confined by the barriers put up by society. ‘I fall in love with a person and not a gender,’ she says. […] Now single and just out of high school, she is leaving the door open to love, while still refusing to give it a gender.”

— Katy Romy, “‘I fall in love with a person and not a gender’,” Swissinfo (2017)

“I’m bisexual so I can’t really come out as gay. When I’m gay I’m very gay. And when I’m with men then, you know, I’m with men. I don’t fall in love with people because of their gender.”

— Nan Goldin for Sleek Magazine (2017)

“I use the word bisexual — a lot / I’ve marched in the Pride parade with the Toronto Bisexual Network / I post Bi pride & Bi awareness articles all over social media / I’m seeking out dates of any and all genders / (not to prove anything to anyone, but simply because I want to)

— D’Arcy L. J. White, “Coming Out as Bisexual,” Bi Women Quarterly (2017)

“BISEXUAL — Someone who is attracted to more than one gender, someone who is attracted to two or more genders, someone who is attracted to the same and other genders, or someone who is attracted to people regardless of their gender. […] Other words with the same definition of bisexual, though they have different connotations, are ‘pansexual,’ ‘polysexual,’ and ‘omnisexual.’”

— Morgan Lev Edward Holleb, The A-Z of Gender and Sexuality: From Ace to Ze (2018)

“In the heat of July [2009], and finally equipped with a word for “attracted to people regardless of gender”, I bounded out of Brighton station with that same best friend. At the time, I didn’t know that we bisexuals have our own flag…”

— Lois Shearing, “Why London Pride’s first bi pride float was so important,” The Queerness (2018)

“Being bisexual does not assume people are only attracted to just two genders. Bisexuality can be limitless for many and pay no regard to the sex or gender of a person.”

— “The Bi+ Manifesto” (2018)

“I realized I was bisexual at age fifteen, but although I am attracted to folks of any gender, I’ve always had a preference for men.”

— Mark Mulligan, “Fight and Flight: ‘Butch Flight,’ Trans Men, and the Elusive Question of Authenticity,” Nursing Clio (2018)

“Bisexuality just became, to me, about that openness — that openness to anything, and any potential to any type of relationship, regardless of gender. Gender is no longer a disqualifier for me. It’s about the person.”

— Rob Cohen, “Where Are All the Bi Guys?,” Two Bi Guys (2019)

“Oh no, Mom. I’m not a lesbian. Actually, I’m bisexual. That means that gender doesn’t determine whom I’m attracted to.”

— Annie Bliss, “Older and Younger,” Bi Women Quarterly (2019)

“A bisexual woman, for example, may have sex with, date or marry another woman, a man or someone who is non-binary. […] If you think you might be bisexual, try asking yourself these questions: …Can I picture myself dating, having sex with, or being married to any gender/sex?”

— “I Think I Might Be Bisexual,” Advocates for Youth

“Although it’s true that people have all kinds of different attractions to different kinds of people, assuming that all bisexuals are never attracted to trans or genderqueer folk is harmful, not only to bi individuals, but to trans and genderqueer individuals who choose to label themselves as bi.”

— “Labels,” Bisexual Resource Center

“My own understanding of bisexuality has changed dramatically over the years. I used to define bisexuality as ‘the potential to be attracted to people regardless of their gender.’ […] Alberto is attracted to the poles, to super-masculine guys and super-feminine girls. Others are attracted to masculinity and/or femininity, regardless of a person’s sex. Some of us who identify as bisexual are in fact ‘gender-blind.’ For others — in fact for me — it’s androgyny or the blending of genders that compels.”

— Robin Ochs, “What Does It Mean to Be Bi+?”, Bisexual Resource Center

“… bisexual people are those for whom gender is not the first criteria in determining attraction.”

— Illinois Department of Public Health, “Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Youth Suicide”

“Bisexuality is sexual/romantic attraction to people regardless of sex or gender.”

— “Bisexual FAQ,” Kvartir

“Please also note that attraction to both same and different means attraction to all. Bisexuality is inherently inclusive of everyone, regardless of sex or gender.

In everyday language, depending on the speaker’s culture, background, and politics, that translates into a variety of everyday definitions such as:

Attraction to men and women

Attraction to all sexes or genders

Attraction to same and other genders

Love beyond gender

Attraction regardless of sex or gender”

— American Institute of Bisexuality, “What Is Bisexuality?,” Bi.org

“This idea [that bisexuality reinforces a false gender binary] has its roots in the anti-science, anti-Enlightenment philosophy that has ironically found a home within many Queer Studies departments at universities across the Anglophone world. […] Bisexuality is an orientation for which sex and gender are not a boundary to attraction… Over time, our society’s concept of human sex and gender may well change. For bis, people for whom sex/gender is already not a boundary, any such change would have little effect.”

— American Institute of Bisexuality, “Questions,” Bi.org

Gender-expansive (or -fluid, or -blind) descriptions of bisexuality are nothing new — and with the exception of the Getting Bi quotes, the above compilation is just what I was able to find online. Arguably, the concept of excluding genders never even crossed the mind of many twentieth-century bisexuals — not just because “nonbinary genders hadn’t entered the mainstream” — but simply because many bisexuals understand bisexuality itself as “beyond” gender. Go to any bisexual organization and they’ll tell you bisexuality is broad and can include anyone.

Of course, the above quotes do not reflect the beliefs of every bisexual — no single quote can do that. These quotes were certainly not the only variation of bisexual-given definitions of bisexuality. I’m only pointing out that the “both” descriptions are similarly not the only ones that exist.

Even then, before wider knowledge of and language for nonbinary identities, attraction to “both” men and women was attraction regardless of gender. “Both” does not purposefully keep anyone out; it only (mistakenly) assumes how many groups there are. Gender not being a make-or-break, or not caring about gender in general, doesn’t depend on how many genders there are.⁶

Not to mention, all sexualities automatically include some nonbinary people — “nonbinary” isn’t merely a third gender. The mere notion that someone could just “not be attracted” to nonbinary people as a group completely misunderstands nonbinary identity.

Some bisexuals “see a person, not a gender,” while others, like me, see a person with a gender (that doesn’t stop us from finding them attractive), if they have one. Being bisexual has made me see people in more gender-neutral ways. Our experiences are far too vast to pin down, and there’s immense beauty in that vagueness.

Also, while bisexual activism and transgender activism have frequently overlapped, plenty of cisgender bisexuals are transphobic. But this is because all sexualities have transphobes. Even if we coined a sexual identity that only transgender people could use, some identifying with it would still likely be transphobes. Why allow transphobic bisexuals to erase the attitudes of all the bisexuals before and after them?

I find it incredibly odd that people now task bisexuals with proving our inclusivity considering that, for decades, we never had to. We had always (i.e., consistently throughout history, not as in every bisexual) been warping gender norms, but it was never to debunk a myth or make ourselves look good; it was just how we were. That hasn’t changed.

One of the predominant stereotypes is still that we’re indiscriminate sluts willing to sleep with anyone, but somehow there’s a new wave of folks insisting that we require our partners to obey the gender binary. I have a severely hard time believing this conclusion is based on reality. Almost all attempts to redefine bisexuality as binary come from people who don’t identify as such.

Imagine if we performed this revisionism with the word “gay.” For this example, I’ll use “gay” to describe gay men in particular.

“Gay” only means exclusive attraction to men, so the people who use that word only like cisgender men. I’m androsexual, which means I like cisgender, transgender, and nonbinary men.

Doesn’t that sound ridiculous? So why do we only apply this rhetoric to bisexuals? (It couldn’t possibly be because of biphobia, could it?)

While it’s obviously unrealistic to say that no bisexual person has ever been transphobic, bisexual orientation is not, and never has been, about exclusion. Considering that bisexual activists were seldom (if ever) focused on the prefix in the word “bisexual,” this recent fixation people have on trying to find a way to use “two” in its definition is misguided.

Begging to differ is ignorant and arrogant, contradicting not only history but many current bisexuals who understand bisexuality as all-encompassing. Acting like it’s uniquely binary or inherently limited in any way is indisputably false and biphobic. Please stop speaking over us and erasing our history. It, like the bisexual community itself, is bountiful, beautiful, and never going away.

Here’s one final quote that, while a bit unrelated to the rest, I particularly enjoy:

“I understand bisexuality not as a mixture of homosexuality and heterosexuality as Kinsey did, nor as a particular sexuality on an equal footing with homosexuality and heterosexuality, but as a holistic view of human sexuality, in which all aspects related to human sexuality are taken into account.”

— Miguel Obradors-Campos, “Deconstructing Biphobia” (2011)

231 notes · View notes

official-queer · 6 years ago

Text

sooo i figured it’d be helpful for me to make a complete post on my thoughts on pansexual as a label. i've answered a few asks about this and then figured i'd covered it enough, but i realize that i covered separate points in each post/ask.

i'll try to make it as organized as possible, but y'all know i'm the king of run-on sentences and unnecessarily long statements and restatements. so yeah, this is gonna be a long one, fellas

"bi = two, pan = all"

in reality, the bi identity has always included attraction to all genders. i'm sure you'll've heard it time and time again, but the 1995 bisexual manifesto states very clearly that bi people are not duogamous in their attraction. insisting that bisexuality is only for attraction to cis men and cis women paints bisexuality as transphobic, as well.

the pan label became so popular with the rise of awareness of nonbinary identities because people started to find it important to state they were also attracted to nonbinary people. the whole pan- prefix was specifically picked because people were aware that "nonbinary" was merely a category for those who fell outside of the imposed male-female dichotomy, and under which several hundred genders could fall.

so... bisexual includes all these hundreds of genders, and pansexual specifies these hundreds of genders. seems redundant, but what's the issue?

"some people find the distinction important"

this is a sentiment i've heard brought up as an argument to just leave pan people alone. but i don't find it quite so valid an argument, irony not intended. *why* is the distinction so important? how come one can concede that bi people like all genders too, but you *must* let people know you are the type of "m-spec" who is definitely able to be attracted to all genders?

the idea one can id as pan but still agree that bi people can also feel the same way a pan person does is contradictory. you are attempting to label an experience as x and argue that it's a necessary label, when there was already a label for x and y. the very idea of a "distinction" is to point out how something is *different*. it's completely redundant.

so if bi and pan are the same, is there some other reason why someone would prefer pan over bi?

"attraction regardless of gender"/"hearts not parts"

i'm lumping these two together because, despite sounding like different points, they argue the same thing in the end. it's just that one is more subtle.

when the label of pansexual was in it's formative years, some sought to argue that pan *is* different from bi, because pansexuals do not consider gender when they are gauging attraction to someone. there are several problems with this.

this switches pan from a "who" label (correct usage of a sexuality label, denoting to whom you are attracted, referring to gender), to a "how" label (incorrect usage of a sexuality label, denoting in what circumstances one feels attraction, not accounting for gender). with the other definition of pan, the "who" was simple - anyone of any gender. with this definition, the "how" is now involved, that being without regarding gender.

within normal parameters of a sexuality label, as in, a "who" label, it is functionally the same as the previous definition. you are still attracted to any gender.

just as well, it can be used just as well for a bi person attracted to all genders. many bi people have stated this is exactly how they feel, and so you jump back to the distinction argument. but also, many gay and straight people have also expressed that gender plays no part in *how* they feel their attraction. their attraction may only include one or so gender(s), but beyond that, it's not something that factors in.

many trans and specifically nonbinary people have stated distaste at this definition as it is dismissive of gender. one gets the impression that their gender struggles, growth, identity, etc. is not important to the pan who uses this definition.

specifically in regards to "hearts not parts", a very popular quote around the early years of the pan label - this gives the very strong idea that pan people are claiming that only their sexuality involves being attracted to the important parts of someone; their mind, their soul, their identity beyond gender, etc.. this is just... yuck.

just as well, this further pushes the pretty prevalent idea among mogai/inclus that gay, bi, and straight people are driven solely by sexual desire. while the "hearts not parts" phrase is uniquely pansexual in nature, the sentiment is shared by inclus asexual and other people using "how" labels, such as demisexual and other "a-spec" people. this sentiment is considered pretty homophobic, because while the idea seems to be against gay, bi, *and* straight people, it is weaponized frequently in opposition to gay and bi folk, especially lesbians.

"it's just a preference"

preferences are for flavors of ice cream. i highly doubt one is basing their whole identity on the phonetic sounds of "pan" vs. "bi", or a "prettier flag", or what have you. typically, if one dives deeper into what exactly these "preferences" are, they almost all lead back to misconceptions about bi as a label.

differing community

it's no secret that pansexual people have, at an alarming rate, culminated for themselves a unique culture and community. it's also no secret that a lot of this reeks of the era it was born from - 2009-2012 internet culture - but my distaste is my own.

some argue that their preference for the pan label is simply due to this differing community. some... do not argue this, but it's apparent. what either party doesn't consider is this: stating preference for one community, in this situation, is stating a preference to not be included in the other community.

this is why i say that some pan people, while not consciously aware, adhere to this argument. i was one of these people. this is where you'll have to forgive my heavy reliance on personal anecdote, but i believe it applies.

when i id'd as pan, i realized later that a big portion of my preference for this label stemmed from this mystified idea of the bi community. in my head, subconsciously, i viewed bi people as mature but not too mature, sexy, club-going, drug-using, edgy. i thought i couldn't be one of those people because they were too *cool* (these ideas aren't cool in this regard - they're very common biphobic stereotypes). pansexuals, on the other hand, where nerdy, friendly, meme-loving, sex-positive but not promiscuous. so many of the "fandom moms" we all used to admired had pan in their tumblr description, twitter bio, blog header, etc.. i could relate to this! (emphasis on could... i'm a normal human being now)

you can see these internal biases become very apparent when you see pan people insisting that their preference is "valid", or when you try to get them to explain how they're different from bi people at all. this isn't a matter of "one community or another", or even "one community over another", but "one community over the boogeyman of our idea of their community". and it all becomes so silly when you see how self-imposed this is - all these traits are bi culture! you're bi! you are contributing all this to bi culture, and you only need to shed your internalized biphobia and realize this!

fetishization of trans identities

i touched on this in my first point, but i'll go more in depth here. essentially, the idea that there must be a separate identity for those willing to date nb people, and god forbid if you're even more ignorant, trans men and women, is inherently othering and, in many cases, fetishizing of trans identities.

in my experience, the pan person who recognizes that pan is the same as bi, but who claims they are pan due simply to preference, is actually in the minority. for every pan of this sort i've seen, i've seen 20 more who blatantly believe that they must id as pan, since they would date trans and nb people. i believe this is almost directly related to how many cis people id as pan, as well as a mix of trans+nb people who've been fed this narrative and now believe it to be true. those quirky fandom moms i mentioned? all cis, all iding as pan performatively. the label of pan is an act of defiance in their eyes, the ultimate symbol of trans+nb allyship. and it's so, soooo cringey. i'd rather they be honest and id as "chaser" and be done with it.

if you're one of those people, or someone who believes this distinction is valid, hear me when i say this: TRANS PEOPLE DO NOT WANT YOUR SPECIAL TREATMENT! binary trans men and women want to be included in your overall binary men and women categories. trans men are men, trans women are women. attraction to men includes trans men by default, attraction to women, the same. nb people adjacent to these binary genders (demi-man, genderfluid, trans masc, agender+masc presenting, etc.) like to be included in these categories of attraction on an individual basis! there are gay men who date masc nb people, and lesbians who identify lesbian attraction as attraction to non-men, and vice versa. how can you rectify iding with an identity solely to point out your attraction to these otherwise unincluded (by your standards) categories, all in the name of being for these peoples' desires, while also ignoring their pleas to just be included and normalized within *all* attractions? can you say that gay, straight, lesbian, and pan people can all be attracted to trans+nb people, but not bi people? that's silly! so, in your attempt to be more inclusive, you've actually insisted on further othering us.

i'll add more points if/when they're brought up, or if i remember anything else later. i just got back from work and am quite tired, so.. :,)

9 notes · View notes

jouissezduprintemps · 8 years ago

Note

Please, I need to know more about your thesis. That sounds super interesting and also disturbing and I know about it a little bit but it would be very cool to see in depth research on that topic.

My thesis focused on three filmic adaptations of the 425C [Beauty and the Beast] fairytale type. Specifically: Jean Cocteau’s La Belle et la bete, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, and Dreamwork’s Shrek. Cocteau’s film is anti-heteronormativity, Disney’s promotes it, and Shrek is a postmodern inversion of the tale 425C.

The best way for me to explain is to quote directly from my thesis. It’s incredibly long, so I did by best to strip it down to bare-bones quotes.

NOTE: The thesis makes heavy use of the word q*eer, in case that’s an issue for anyone who might read. Obviously, it isn’t used as a slur, but I know that a lot of people don’t like the word. I use it here in reclamation, but I don’t want to upset a reader.

To quote a few key points in my introduction:“This essay focuses on how each of these three films conveys the sexual ideology of the filmmaker to the spectator in the theatre, specifically in terms of heteronormativity and queer sexuality.”

“An examination of these three films as they pertain to queer sexuality and rights is essential in a society torn between acceptance and hate of individuals within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community.”

“By looking at these films through the lens of LGBTQ theory, the viewer can see how the perpetuation of or rebellion against the societal, sexual status quo denotes the validity of certain characters as human. Others are judged by this status quo for their presentations of gender, while still these characters are held accountable for their own queer or heterosexual realizations of their true selves. The game of performance and sexuality is dangerous for those who exist outside the dominant ideologies of their worlds and have no desire to conform.“

Cocteau’s La Belle et la bete (1946, France)“The Beast’s desire to possess this feminine symbol, whether it be Beauty or the rose, is not due to a heterosexual coupling instinct. Rather, it is a necessary part of his identity as a beast to possess both femininity and masculinity within himself.”

“Because the Beast was raised as a man, he realizes that the act of animalistic, savage hunting [*literal in this sense*] is not one which is societally attributed tomen. He knows that he is acting outside of this binary construct and that, if he is caught after the act, the evidence of his inhumanity and queerness will be undeniable. However, the need to hunt is a natural and necessary part of his identity as a monster, and it is unavoidable while he existsin this state. Yet he cannot claim this natural action as his own; his upbringing taught him that he needs to be a man, and a man does not hunt in this way. As such, there exists a dysphoria between who (or what) the Beast is and who he believes he should be. The clash between his twoidentities is not unlike that of a queergendered person battling with societal expectations of heteronormative presentation.”

“Beauty views the Beast as a monster in the same way that everyone else in her world does; the Beast does not entirely conform to the societal definition of humanness because he does not easily fall within the gender binary, and, as such, is something that should be feared from afar and attacked as a threat if it comes too close, lest they risk the endangerment of their own status as human.”

“Beauty recognizes no obvious change within herself; she is not whisked upwards in a whirl of magic which clearly and exaggeratedly transforms her sexuality. Neither does she use her attraction to the Beast as any sort of platform or derive her personal status from it. Her attraction simply is. The normalcy with which Beauty’s transformation takes place and is accepted within the Beast’s queer realm show that this separate world is one in which those who do not fit into the heterosexual gender binary may live as their true selves.”

“It is when Beauty, considered by Avenant [*suitor*] to be his property, is “corrupted” by the Beast that it becomes necessary, as seen through the eyes of the patriarchal country society, for Avenant, their ideal of heteronormative masculinity, to stage his attack on behalf of his ideal woman.”

“In Cocteau’s surprising cinematic twist at the end of the film, the magical transformation of the Beast into a human prince bestows upon him a physical likeness identical to that of the recently-dead Avenant. The same actor plays both parts, and Beauty is visibly shocked and disturbed by the appearance of the heteronormative man who stands in front of her. It is clear that she has fallen in love with the image of the Beast rather than the prospect of the prince; eventhough the two are the same man internally, she possesses no physical attraction to his transformed, human and heteronormative state. The Beast has become the embodiment of heteronormative masculinity, the very trait that caused Beauty to reject Avenant.”

“Cocteau’s La Belle et la bête glamorizes heteronormative love in such a grandiose way that even cis-gendered 5 , heterosexual viewers question the ceremony upon which traditional romantic relationships are founded. By makinglight of heteronormative ideology and stereotypes, Cocteau underscores the disadvantage of LGBTQ individuals in society as a whole. The pedestal upon which Beauty and the prince stand at the end of the film is one of a heteronormative ideal; the woman tamed the wild man, who hasbecome the perfect gentleman and has tamed her in return. The blatant parodying of the patriarchal coupling rites seen at the end of this film causes the viewer, heteronormative or queer, to look at this pomp and circumstance with a skeptical eye. The audience, as such, is forced to puzzle over what they have seen as Beauty and the prince depart for their utopia, just as confused by Beauty and the prince’ heterosexual coupling as one would be if the couple were of a queer sexuality.”

Disney’s Beauty and the Beast (1991) [NOTE: This was written before the live-action release, which I have not seen. What I assert here pertains to the animated feature.]“In short, he [*beast*] is incapable of being physically threatening, even is his moments of rage, due to his muted and, in some cases, domesticated features. The viewer is never allowed to forget that the Beast is truly the prince from the beginning of the film. It is through these traditionally attractive,masculine characteristics that Disney is capable of maintaining the Beast’s heteronormativity and position on the gender binary while he does not physically appear as a human male.”

“Through the in-depth measures taken by Disney to insure that their audience cannot mistake the Beast’s masculine status on the gender binary, the queer subtext of the beast-figure’s very nature is completely removed from the story. As a result, the Beast openly perpetuates the dominant, heteronormative ideology shared by both the characters in the film and the producers in the Disney Corporation.”

“The Disney Beast reacts in the same way as Cocteau’s, with a demonstration of hypermasculinity. The Beast is a man enraged, yet his fury does not surpassthat which is deemed acceptably masculine. He walks the fine line between (hyper)masculinity and beastliness, careful never to step over into the realm of monsters, the realm of queer existence.”

“If the ideal heterosexual male is to find a mate, he must search for the ideal heterosexual female to be his wife, in the literal, proprietary sense of ownership. Belle is portrayed from the beginning of the film as this ideal, heterosexual female. She performs her gender in a corresponding manner with her birth sex. To further elevate her to the status of ideal, the commoners in her village sing along with Belle during the very first song of the film, which bears her name. The common theme is incomprehension of Belle on the part of the townspeople, and it is this otherworldliness that places Belle upon a pedestal”

“Although Belle is hailed as a savior, it is clear that she will be forced into a heterosexual coupling with the Beast, regardless of her own desires. This patriarchal assumption of purpose for Belle completely skips over her own will, rendering her in a lower position of power than the servants. As the ideal woman, she must be demure, submissive, and a martyr. She is seen by thehousehold servants as a tool (which surprisingly maintains her human status) who will gladly be used to improve the lives of everyone around her and to maintain the patriarchal, heterosexual status quo within the utopia of the castle.”

“However, the Beast’s position of the male ideal needs a foil if he is to climb up the pedestal while still in his monstrous form. Gaston, Belle’s unsuccessful suitor, fills this role. He is the epitome of machismo: his muscles bulge out of his shirt, he breathes sexism, and he even has his very own song about how much of a man he is. This hypermasculine caricature serves to remind the audience that they are not to focus too heavily on the outward appearance of the Beast. Gaston, through his rivalry for Belle’s affections, serves as a reaffirmation of the Beast’s original position as a white, heterosexual male. Two men are offering their affections to the ideal woman; both men serve as an ideal in their own right within the drastic disparity of their social classes. However, it is Gaston’s hypermasculinity that, while maintaining his position as a heterosexual, calls into question his ability to complete the ideal woman.”

“Even when fighting unfairly, the inner emasculation Gaston has possessed throughout the film is not enough to stand up against, let alone tear down, the ideal man. The Beast’s identity as the ideal man is secure, but the costseems to be too high. As he lies dying from the wounds he has sustained, Belle expresses her love for him, and these words result in the explicit union of the ideal woman and the ideal man. This ideal, heterosexual coupling named “true love” breaks the spell which has plagued the castle. Belle has served her gendered purpose. She has loved, served, and suffered beautifully enough to provide a happily ever after for herself, the prince, and all of the household servants. Her reward is the, now-human, ideal man…”

“Belle is overwhelmingly pleased with the human appearance of the Beast, drawing a sharp contrast to the Beauty in Cocteau’s adaptation. Their sexual attraction is strengthened rather than weakened, and Belle does not have to make a sacrifice of personal preference to stay with him. The happy union of the ideal man and woman may seem a bit overdramatized, but this is not done to the point of incredulity in the Disney Corporation’s film. The utopia and happiness on the screen is shown as being attainable, albeit exclusive. By virtue of being shown on the screen, both as the Beast’s domain and the prince’s lavish palace, this place is given validity as something which not only has the possibility to exist but as a place which a select few will be able to inhabit. The notion of the beauty getting her prince, a castle, and a “happily ever after” isnot parodied by the Disney Corporation. Rather, it is promised, so long as those wishing to attain it remain intelligible on the gender binary and participate in the patriarchal, heteronormativity which the company promotes.”

Dreamworks’ Shrek (2004)“DreamWorks Animation’s Shrek opposes the Disney Corporation’s Beauty and the Beast, seemingly at every turn, even from the opening scene. The story begins with the opening of a book of fairy tales, mirroring the same opening of the Disney Corporation’s adaptation. It is here that things take a turn for the unexpected. Scoffing at the notion of fairy tales and their ‘happily ever afters,’ the title character rips a page out of a storybook and proceeds to use the page in lieu of toilet paper. In response to the notion of “true love’s first kiss,” Shrek scoffs “like that’s ever gonna happen.” This shocking first impression labels the title character as a beast in the eyes of the viewer before he is seen on the screen. By quite literally defecating on the Disney Corporation’s notion of heteronormative utopia, DreamWorks leaves no room for doubt that this film is intended as a reaction to the Disney Corporation’s concept of the ideal man and woman.”

“Shrek is not the Beast from Cocteau’s or the Disney Corporation’s films; he does not possess an impregnable space which others fear to approach. As an ogre, he belongs to the fairy-tale community at large, and the refugees feel that they have a right to his isolated, and therefore safe, realm.”

“By virtue of living in his swamp, Shrek escapes much of the homophobic negativity forced upon those like him in the beginning of the film. This swamp is seen as a safe haven for the non-binary, anthropomorphic fairy-tale characters who seek out refuge from the violence perpetuated against them. It exists inan outside realm with no threatening authority to police their presentation of heteronormative gender and sexuality, which, by their very nature, the fairy-tale characters are mostly incapable of providing.”

“Lord Farquad’s constant embodiment of patriarchal heteronormativity quickly and easily portrays him as the villain of the film. He does not, unlike Avenant and Gaston, get a chance at playing the “good guy.” More so than either suitor in the previous films discussed in this essay, Lord Farquad acts as the unyielding defender of heterosexual relations and heteronormative presentation. In his eyes, humanity is determined by these same concepts.”

“Shrek’s relative naïveté of the hate crimes being perpetuated against the fairy tale characters, along with his disbelief that he is similar to them, prompt him to seek out aid from the heteronormative, humanoid society within Duloc. At this point in the film, he seems not to understand his own “Otherness” which he so readily embraces when it allows him to live in solitude. For the first time, he is faced with the same discriminatory and violent treatment as the refugees whom he is trying to evict from his home. His life is threatened because he dared tocross over the barrier between queer existence into the realm of heteronormativity.”

“Princess Fiona’s predicament, however, is the exact opposite than that of Shrek; cursed to transform as an ogre during the night, she wishes to present and to only be seen as the ideal woman, the damsel in the tower. She is less than pleased that her rescue is not storybook in nature, and she is livid when she finds out her knight is an ogre rather than the ideal man who she imagined. The desire she has to hide herself during her nightly transformations is not unlike the desire of those with gender identity disorder to perform their given sex while hiding their true sex from the world.”

“On the last night of their journey, Princess Fiona’s secret is revealed. Her “coming out” is a complete accident, and Donkey’s outbursts of incredulity do nothing to soothe her as she faces invalidation from a member of the community to which she truly belongs. She experiences self- loathing, referring to herself as a beast. Yet she does not deny that she is not this particular, monstrous identity. By indicating that her transformations have taken place from when she was alittle girl, Princess Fiona replicates a common narrative to those within the LGBTQ community.”

“Princess Fiona’s final transformation shares elements with those of Cocteau’s and the Disney Corporation’s beasts. She is swept up in a wave of magic and saved by true love. Yet it is crucial to remember that, despite her state of physical transformation, she is still the Beauty character within the narrative. Just like her predecessors, she must first struggle against the beast before attaining a state of acceptance of herself and of her victorious suitor. Princess Fiona, much like Cocteau’s Beauty, comes to a deeper understanding of herself and her sexuality … In both cases, the challenge is one of sexual realization that lies outside of heteronormativity. Yet, unlike Cocteau’s Beauty, this knowledge is not something that Princess Fiona can stifle while accepting her lit in marriage to her suitor. The union between Shrek and Princess Fiona is celebrated by the fairytale community as well as the citizens of Duloc. They arenot placed on pedestals as ideals, but they are welcomed by a community which shares their personal joy in a major life event. Their existence is that of a simple couple who are no different from any other.”

“The inclusivity of the swamp is proven by the wedding celebration; people and fairy-tale characters of all sorts are capable of existing within this particular area. It is not cut off from the rest of the world, untouchable, or ideal. It is simply a home. There is no guarantee of eternal happiness and ease, because that is not reality. The magic of this place lies in its inhabitants; two nonbinary characters are able to form a union and inhabit a space without risk of harm ordiscrimination from those around them. Contrasted with the violence which fairy-tale characters experienced throughout the film, a promise of a safe home is closer to a utopia than any far-away world could be. To exist while openly embracing their true identities and sexualities is more thancould have been hoped for while Lord Farquad was still the ruling figure. For members of the LGBTQ community, this place of openness and acceptance is utopia, one that can be made into a reality outside of fairy tales.”

Conclusion

“Fairy tales, in their versatility, remain an excellent medium for the conveyance of ideologies. Although this essay focuses on messages of sexuality, such tales open themselves up to a broad spectrum of criticism and interpretations. Much like their adaptability to location and era, these tales morph to serve the needs of those who adapt them as well as those who choose to read them. With these three filmic adaptations of type 425C, heterosexuality has been reluctantlyaccepted, wholeheartedly embraced, and blatantly rejected. By virtue of their source material, all three are linked, even though they are drastically different from one another. As long as the notion of a “happily ever after” exists, there will be tales and tellers to recount how one can go about obtaining this end, be it through magic, social class, or love.”

I know this is a really long answer, but I hope you enjoyed it and that it wasn’t too academic. If you want the academic side, I’d be happy to send you my bibliography!

#Leah's thesis

4 notes · View notes

jeremyfrechette · 8 years ago

Text

The "Californication" of America

If you have any doubts to the depraved depths progressives what to submerge America, look no further than the once Golden Republic of California. Inundated with 1.3 trillion in debt despite possessing the highest sales tax and marginal income tax rates in the U.S., California is now attempting to borrow from itself to pay outstanding retirement pensions. Why? When counties and cities continuously offer exorbitant employee benefit packages - the over 20,000 residents currently collecting 6 figure pensions - while the taxable revenues/incomes of private businesses and corporations are fleeing suffocating regulations in record numbers, somebody’s trying to eat Prime Rib on a McRib budget. Not to pour salt into insolvency or double dip those $15 minimum wage fries waving in the Western horizon, but Illegal aliens and their dependents cost Californians $25.3 billion per year according to FAIR's 2017 report: The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on California Taxpayers. The state's 3 million illegal immigrants and their 1.1 million US–born children cost the average California household — headed by a U.S. citizen — $2,370 annually. And what special allowances have been granted to those struggling, natural born families who pay must foot the bill of the Democratic Party’s foreign voter adoption and affirmative action estate? Mind your white privilege; even if you’re not white, live paycheck-to-paycheck and still can’t afford to rent a cupboard in San Francisco's Pacific Heights.

Enough about redistribution and devaluing a sentient being’s “worth”. Let’s talk about how California residents can now knowingly infect another person with HIV without informing their partner of their status, but state workers (including teachers and social workers) can be fined or even jailed for using the incorrect “gender” pronouns. In some educational institutions where gender-queer conditioning of elementary kids has becoming mandatory conditioning masked as sensitivity cognition, grade school students themselves can be reprimanded for not indulging their peers’ non-binary, role playing fantasies. In other words, ignore your genitals and reject your biological birth, liberate hate by wearing a dress, because little is more abnormal than just letting kids be kids without the inherited baggage of "sex" obsessed malcontents. But never fear, calling for the assassination of the President, beating peaceful pedestrians expressing political dissent or slandering any patriotic Republican as a Nazi bigot, is both commonplace, if not admirable, on enlightened college campuses and now in the “non-discriminatory” workplace.

Not to invoke the irony of future mugged constituents, California lawmakers recently passed Proposition 57 mandating early release for all “non-violent” criminals”. And what exactly constitutes a non-violent crime worthy of such leniency? Oh, just the rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving sex acts with minors, and assault with a deadly weapon. And here I thought legalizing child prostitution was but another attempt to normalize pedophilia among Hollywood benefactors lecturing Middle America about equality and tolerance. Once you breech and discredit one ethical boundary - those societal foundations of gender, family, faith and love of country - people will literally defend the most senseless, soulless acts for their existence is defined by limitless pleasure, perceived entitlement and a glaring inability to think for themselves. "Progress" isn't derived by forcing people to handicap their success, bake a sacrilegious cake to the extortion of financial ruin or purposely exposing innocent children to perverse Gay Pride parades and profane feminist rallies. Progress is realizing living the lifestyle of your choice, the literal sanctity between right and wrong, should never require confiscating the rights and dignity of others solely to validate/advertise one's bombastic beliefs.

With such inane reasoning masquerading as good government, it is of little surprise Governor Jerry Brown declared our immigration laws moot by further investing in sanctuary cities and attempting to obstruct ICE officials from apprehending known fugitives. When you’re more distraught over than the safety and so-called rights of non-citizens than the death of a 32 year-old woman murdered by a man deported 5 times, prudence and justice are antithetical anomalies. Not only are California illegals now eligible for driver’s licenses, they can legally vote in an election if they are officially registered to vote. And what does it take to register to vote in the great state of California? A driver’s license and a personal guarantee you’re a citizen. Yes, you heard me correctly, the legitimacy of our elections, the survival of our 241 year-old republic, is now based entirely on the honor system; or if you prefer perspective over subjective bliss, foreign invaders who consciously broke our laws without a hint of regret, only to be congratulated with a complimentary door prize, the honorary American oppressed immigrant mindset, of leftist socio-economic contempt.

I take umbrage with any self-respecting American, God forbid elected civil servant, who is completely indifferent to the estimated 3 million unlawful votes cast in 2016 simply because they believe small town America values and the electoral college should acquiesce to the moral degradation and militant activism of urban epicenters like San Francisco, Los Angeles or Chicago. Considering California alone accounted for over 10% of Hillary Clinton's final vote total, a 3.4 million difference that exceeded her 2.86 million final popular vote lead, I'm confused as to how those Donald Trump supporters representing over 90% of American territory - or precisely 3,084 counties of all 3,141 U.S. counties - should take a knee with Colin Kaepernick to empower a regressive state that dismisses the rule of law, mocks rural America and remains visibly contentious towards any concept of electoral sovereignty.

There’s also another term for those politicians who willingly subvert the immigration process and disregard our voting statutes to their personal and civic benefit? It’s called sedition, dereliction of duty, treason. If I may, when did defiant trespassers become “Dreamers” and doorbells a humanitarian crisis? Have millions of aspiring Americans from across the globe, for well over a century, not honored the afforded requirements for securing the privilege of becoming a U.S. citizen? Conspiring to invalidate prescribed protocols ratified to ensure legal and orderly naturalization – those measures explicitly enacted to protect America’s citizens and welfare - makes about as much sense as giving convicted felons the right to vote because of “felon disenfranchisement”; i.e., the admitted hearsay of political opportunists salivating over the fact 60% of released California convicts are minorities who deserve the opportunity to vote Democrat.

The same bureaucratic terrorists who forced 53 dairy farmers to go bankrupt and/or relocate to saner pastures due to absurd regulations on cow farts are somehow entirely satisfied with the unsubstantiated word of an undocumented, unvetted immigrant. Surprised? Not unless logic and liberalism share a nonflammable unitard. And while peace activists remain adamant U.S. citizens must undergo extensive background checks to exercise their constitutionally affirmed right to bear arms – naturally excluding those potential militants illegally entering a sovereign country in a post 9/11 world – their unflinching “non-partisan concern” for human life magically ceases at the recognized borders of radical agents like Iran and North Korea; inhumane, totalitarian regimes that globalists duplicitously believe possess an inalienable right to develop nuclear weapons despite vowing daily to destroy Western Civilization. So what’s the common denominator? Rampant, unabridged, unapologetic anti-Americanism.

When voting is no longer our most sacred duty and the integrity of our elections becomes a racist endeavor, as denoted by California’s refusal to investigate massive vote fraud uncovered in November, America becomes a second class citizen unable to defend itself in its own home due to fear of “offending” the same guests who would outlaw our flag, silence free speech and ban the national anthem if given only a fleeting chance. In essence, any policy that strengthens or reaffirms America’s independence, influence and economic vitality is an affront to the liberal narrative America must surrender its identity and founding Constitutional charter for being an evil empire built upon greed and White supremacy. Or in historically accurate terms, a superior culture displacing an ethnocentric population which supplanted other nomadic societies via the auspices of war, commerce, adaptability and/or technological superiority. Whereas California and New York are hopelessly lost to the left’s orchestrated demographic coup d’etat and ideological conditioning of their respective populaces, states like Virginia, Colorado, and Michigan are not far behind.

Regardless of one’s political persuasion, you don’t have to be a historian or even watch the History channel to understand America was erected as a free republic for a moral, self-sufficient people acutely aware of the triggers of tyranny, poverty and religious persecution. Individual liberty, limited government, transparency and accountability were never optional amenities on an academic drug trip to worship the Lenin Statue in Marxist Seattle. These autonomous attributes represented conceptual necessities whose only negotiable features were the exact method and expected integrity of implementation.

Unfortunately for the idyllic state of California, squatting on the world’s sixth largest economy and boasting vast untapped natural resources, its propensity for dysfunction and waste is only superseded by its systemic rejection of America itself. Whenever West Coast socialists are not charging working families and commercial transportation the highest fuel taxes in the nation, environmental terrorists who cannot differentiate between ecology and political alarmism are manufacturing water shortages and sparking unnatural disasters with pseudo-scientific regularity. Fixing the error of your naive ways is near impossible when rogue political fantasy displaces sound judgement and the Constitutional authority of your native country. How else can controlled thinning of excessive forestation designed to reduce the risk of uncontrollable wildfires, similar to the recent devastation which devoured 9,000 homes/buildings and 250,000 acres of habitat, be equated to "clear cutting" or raping the land?

It is also of little surprise California elitists, aka doomsday legislators seeking another excuse to tax common sense, believe Global Warming is not a natural, cyclical occurrence predominantly caused by solar fluctuations and the temperature of the Earth's core. Never mind Antarctic ice levels are far greater than 30 years ago and New York is not submerged beneath Al Gore's "unnatural science" grade point average, if you believe a .03 reduction goal in global temperatures in a century's time at an eventual loss of 2.5 trillion in annual GDP is a winning strategy, than counting cow farts and banning combustible engine cars by 2040 is your golden ticket to getting assaulted on Bay Area Rapid Transit for reading 1984 without a permit. But never fret, Sacramento City Council approved a motion to pay gang members for the conscious decision not to kill one another; or in layman's terms, obey the law and stay in school. And to think millions of decent, hard working Americans are ineligible because of their offensive civilized "privilege".

Although it's mathematically impossible to pinpoint exactly what alternative universe California Democrats reside, our Forefathers would have called for a second armed revolution long ago. No, Really! Whether or not progressives approve of President Trump is a moot point if their own policies and authoritative abuse do not adhere to the prescribed constitutional checks of adopted statehood. Likewise, embodying the fight for state sovereignty by no means justifies endeavoring to become like those impoverished, inept nations your exploding illegal immigrant population is instinctively fleeing. It's hard to fathom how the once "Go West" mantra of American pioneers that catapulted California into an unprecedented wave of prosperity, proud nationalism and a vibrant centrifuge for diversity, has dissolved into an immoral state of cultural Marxism that believes government is god, gender is a fluid state of mind, exploitation a form of education, and patriotism an unjust form of racial oppression.

It is obviously no secret the once predominantly “Red” stomping grounds of Ronald Wilson Reagan has been turned bright blue by an unprecedented wave of immigration and indoctrinated anti-Americanism. That was and always has been the goal of the radical statist quo. Where this nation was forged as a beacon of hope and opportunity for millions of law-abiding aspiring citizens seeking a better life, California has descended into counter-intuitive cesspool that preaches victimization over accountability, reverse discrimination over equality, intolerance over intellectual diversity. No matter how pure your intentions or how strong your faith in the nature of human volition, you cannot coexist with partisans so obsessed with maintaining political supremacy they would gladly surrender their own country to those who tirelessly seek our demise or break any rule to control our lives out of some misplaced sense of social justice that gives no such credence to their own failures and hypocrisy; most, notably, those corrupt, foreign governments globalists so foolishly favor to the liquidation of civility and the downfall of mankind.

While no American wants to witness the secession of California, or more profoundly the dissection of America's legacy and the abandonment of our fellow right-minded countrymen who represent the powerless minority, how long can you spare a cancerous appendage before it spreads, poisons your soul and ultimately takes your life? Will apathy reclaim our revisionist classrooms or assuage the sponsored anarchist war on police and freedom of speech? Once again, the left’s goal is not to coexist under the ideological umbrella that was and is America. Their unrelenting mission is to whitewash history, ensure conformity and redefine America by eradicating all borders, natural human distinctions – symbiotic gender roles and the family paradigm - so the concepts of liberty, individual achievement and morality quickly become outdated manifestations that can no longer threaten the secular supremacy of a progressive state. The systemic decay of California is as much a symbol of our failure as a society, as it is a dire warning to every governor and undaunted patriot that still believes God is the liberty of salvation, character does not fear consequence, and raising respectful, responsible children is by far our greatest contribution to humanity; that indomitable virtue of a free nation born from the bounty of a Judeo-Christian seed but distinctly American creed. If this transcendent republic has any chance to coalesce and preserve the timeless wisdom of a handful of visionaries marked for death by the tyranny of a crown's crest, I believe hope resides in the heartland of an industrious people - a summoned Convention of States faithful to independence and the merits of intelligent debate - still rightfully proud of their heritage and ever cognizant of the evil contempt and complacency breeds.

0 notes