mint-chocolatey-chip - Tumblr blog

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

you're a bihet freak who fetishizes femme gay men, do you want an applause for your hettery? the only thing you zesty straights do is fetishize opposite-sex homosexuality and call that 'qWeEr' as if that wasn't the most peak het thing imaginable. most gnc men are same-sex attracted and you're just blatantly saying you want to be in a hetero relationship with a man who's same-sex attracted? might as well admit you have a mutual homophobic 'conversion' kink 🤢 no bigger hettery than Two ssa bi people in a het relationship, disgusting. if you ever managed to date a femme bi man you'll soon be left for d*** lmao, they probably crave it even more than a hettie bettie like you xo

thanks for reminding me this blog exists lol anyways idk what you’re on but i’d like some

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

TW Rape discussion

I watched S4E7 of the handmaid's tale and it left a really bad taste in my mouth.

First, was June's thing about Serena. It is extremely gratifying to see Serena crying and imagining the suffering she has caused other women. However, it feels empty when Fred is just over there enjoying himself. "There is no one less deserving of redemption than you" is that really what June thinks? Even the Commander who took the child bride and sex trafficked her?

I feel like this comes from an idea that women who enact misogynistic violence against fellow women are more deserving of punishment than men who enact misogynistic violence against women, rather than it being an equal playing field (while also recognizing how the woman already takes some punishment in the form of misogyny while the man does not).

Why is it so gratifying to see Serena crying and facing the suffering she has caused others? Would it be as gratifying to see Fred in that position? Or is it a situation where you cannot imagine Fred having the capability to empathize because he is a man? Could he ever truly understand? Whereas Serena has every capability and likelihood of understanding, since her life is entirely ruled by misogyny.

The next thing that bothers me about the episode (though honestly not the episode itself but the reactions I've looked at) is the scene with Luke. June raped him. There is no doubt or gray area. It was EXTREMELY clear what was happening. He told her to wait, and she ignored him, held him down, covered his mouth, and raped him. And yet... people are focusing on how traumatized June is and how messed up her trauma has made her (though a good thing to talk about) as if that's the only thing involved in that scene. And then you have dumbasses saying that it wasn't rape because he was stronger and could get away if he wanted to, etc.

It feels like some deeply-rooted misogyny to me to brush off that scene.

i think it was very significant when June's voiceover said the word "rape" and it showed Luke's smile fading as he watched June and Nicole. The show absolutely has made it clear what happened.

It reminds me of the episode where the ritual was done violently rather than peacefully. People were disturbed and upset as if THAT was a rape scene but none of the other ritual scenes were. No, it's been rape all along.

I haven't watched any other episodes yet but I'm curious about how they're going to handle June's relationship with Luke from here on out.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

The BTQ+ is to blame for this, not the LG.

I expect the hatred of trans ppl bc they’re a terf but like why are bisexuals in there lmao

the whole woc have no shared experiences w white women thing is so wild to me like i, a brown, can read some medieval white european womans thoughts on female embodiment and how it’s a prison and think “mood.” I can read some misogynistic Ancient Greek text and feel hurt and disgusted by it.

I can relate to these things bc guess what… women of colour are women…. we are female…. we can relate to white women and their experiences of misogyny bc we too suffer from misogyny… and while some of these experiences are different due to the nature of our oppression as racialized women, many of these experiences are exactly the same. I’m so fed up of queer devils, not even all of them white, using us as pawns for their dumb arguments.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

Mormon sex co-op speedrun any% no major glitches no anal

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

i don’t know if i’m totally getting the point (that anon is almost incomprehensible to me but maybe it’s just too late in the evening for me to be on tumblr) but, was that tweet actually a terf point? Like, trans women very much are oppressed in places like that and they don’t need to be asked about their pronouns in order to be oppressed.

Women who are scared for their rights, are now told, they probably would support taliban. Aren't those gender-crazies the ones, that use dehumanizing language for biological women, want to take away their sex based rights and even attack trans-people and gay people, who do not agree with them?!

I’m guessing this is about that one tweet that went around where somebody was like “the taliban doesn’t have to ask for pronouns to know who to oppress”?

I was really annoyed about how people reacted to that… IMO the reaction should have been criticizing them for being disrespectful and bringing up pronoun stuff when we’re talking about women being persecuted. Not purposefully misunderstanding what they were trying to get at, which is the idea that the taliban persecutes women for their sex, not their gender “identity”.

Because it was incredibly inappropriate, unnecessary, and disrespectful to go on about pronouns and such when talking about this. But it seemed like people were so eager to misinterpret it as “omg they’re praising the taliban” which wasn’t what was being said at all. People would’ve looked much smarter if they’d criticized the tweet for the right reasons.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

even if an LGBT person wasn’t born LGBT or at least doesn’t conceptualize it as such (i know someone who started having SGA in their 50s!) I don’t think making this a trauma thing is smart… trauma is something you heal from, something you learn to cope with. Being LGBT isn’t something you should try to heal from!

If your disability/trauma is the reason you're lgbtqia+

You're still a valid queer person

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

You guys really need to come up with an argument other than “you can’t tell a nonbinary person from another person” when saying gay and straight people can be attracted to nonbinary people

I just met another man who looked like, acted like, talked like, and was indistinguishable from a woman. He was a man! He told me about how he confuses straight men and lesbians all the time and how they sometimes insist that he’s valid enough for their attraction because he looks like a woman.

If I started going around saying “straight men and lesbians can be attracted to men because you can’t really tell who’s a man and who’s a woman on the street! They could be any gender!” then (I would hope) people would get up in arms.

Yeah a straight man or a lesbian could be attracted to someone of ANY gender, including nonbinary or male, on first glance. They could even get to know them and fall in love with them if the person didn’t disclose their gender. That doesn’t automatically mean that straight men and lesbians can be attracted to men and still be straight / a lesbian.

I just wish you people would stop using this argument because it’s stupid. Attraction isn’t about gender, even though it’s based on perceived gender for many people. You can’t actually know what someone’s gender is unless they tell you, you have to just assume.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

Misogyny is a multifaceted thing. Trans men can face misogyny without actually being women because our world is cisnormative and assigns certain things to womanhood that aren't actually what being a woman is about. Sex-based oppression is as much misogyny as the hatred of the female gender.

Trans women don't experience misandry because misandry does not exist (if we're using the same definition of misandry -- the "reverse racism" of misogyny, or the oppression of the oppressors). The reason why transmisogyny exists is because our society hates women, and it hates when "men" choose to be women. When society punishes men who are feminine, it is a hatred of women that is causing this to happen, not a hatred of men. It is the upholding of a system of oppression that benefits men (just like our society can punish any privileged person who "lowers themselves" to the oppressed, like how white people can be punished for entering mixed race relationships and how cishets can be punished for being allies).

Can someone explain to me why trans women experience (trans)misogyny but trans men also experience misogyny??? Is it just this deep refusal to acknowledge that misandry could ever be a thing? Because trans women apparently experience a form of misogyny on the basis of their gender, but discrimination against trans men is... also misogyny but on the basis of their sex??? If trans men experience misogyny, why don't trans women experience misandry? After all, the whole basis behind transmisogyny is that people hate when AMAB people ("men") don't abide to gender roles.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

homonormative

“the queer community is more radical than the lgbt community which is white and assimilationist” is the primo incomprehensible online take of people that literally cannot think for themselves and just copycat whatever hot takes they see on twitter from people that do the same thing

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

some people on this site seem to have a really profound misunderstanding of what slurs are. like, you can’t “use a word as a slur.” it’s either always a slur or not a slur, and a slur is different from an insult.

for example- gay is not a slur, since it’s a term gay people chose for ourselves, but is frequently used as an insult because of homophobia. in contrast, dyke is a slur because it originated as a way to criticize stereotypical lesbians, then was later reclaimed by some wlw.

slurs cannot be universally reclaimed. a word does not go from a slur to “no longer a slur.” like that’s not how this works lol, and there will always be people who are uncomfortable with a slur you reclaim.

remember that your experiences are not universal- in many places, slurs like queer are still used and it’s incredibly disrespectful to those of us who’ve been called slurs you haven’t to say that they’re not slurs anymore.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

Tbh I think the whole concept of lesbian =/= woman to be taken to a ridiculous level. As you say, on an individual level it makes sense but when you start applying it on a large scale and insisting no one even make a generalisation that lesbians are women? What does lesbian even mean then?

Honestly, agreed

I still stand behind my reasoning that you can be nonbinary and a lesbian, but you do have to be comfortable enough with being associated with women to be a wlw.

I dislike the definition “non-men attracted to non-men.” First of all, who is a man is just as difficult a question as who is a woman. Second of all, it seems weird to phrase lesbianism around men. Like, people do that to bi women all the time (“available to men”) but lesbians? Why?

I just think it’s important to keep the wlw community centered around women who love women, because misogyny and homophobia and biphobia are all at play.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

It’s so easy to have words for lesbians with difficult relationships with gender to the point where you can be a lesbian who isn’t a woman at all, but nothing like that exists for bi women

It’s been said before that bi women can have difficult relationships with gender too because of the reality of being a woman who loves women in a heteronormative and homophobic world, but no one is really thinking about this IMO. “Some lesbians aren’t wlw (women who love women)” are bi women allowed this too?

Would you see a post that says lesbians & bi women = wlw and protest because some lesbians aren’t wlw, but you don’t mention bi women at all?

I think this is purely because “lesbian” is a noun by itself and “bi woman” has “woman” in it. If the word lesbian didn’t exist and lesbians only had “gay women” to go off of i’m sure this conversation would be very different.

The idea that some lesbians can not be wlw but bi women have to be just makes me feel like no one takes bi women seriously when they say they struggle with gender too

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

transphobic people’s definition of the word lesbian literally doesn’t matter -- totally agree

every sexuality inherently includes nonbinary people, and excluding nonbinary people from sapphic spaces in general, but also from lesbian spaces specifically, is harmful -- Also totally agree, I’m not sure why you put this here but if something I said prompted it then there was a misunderstanding. I will say that the wording “every sexuality inherently includes nonbinary people” is misleading and causes a lot of unnecessary discourse, so it’s best to say “every sexuality includes at least some nonbinary people” because not every sexuality is going to include anyone who is nonbinary 

The idea that some lesbians are not wlw is new to me and I’m not totally sure that I agree with this, as wlw was created as a term to unite lesbians and bi women as the two sexualities for women who love women

The reason that I said that nonbinary wlw need to either accept being women in a sense or not identify as wlw is because when you’re trying to demand that an entire community change their language to not be about women when the community is heavily centered around women and cannot be separated from women, this just isn’t realistic… perhaps I should say that either you should accept being a woman in a sense, accept not being a woman but being part of a community Of Women that is centered around women, or not identify as wlw. I realize that you can not identify as a woman but still consider yourself part of a community of women (which is the entire concept of being nonbinary and a lesbian). Like my issue isn’t with anyone’s individual identity but rather policing the language of a large amount of people. Language policing is okay in some situations but I don’t really think that this is best when it comes to the wlw community who have historically been a women-centered community, and considering that women and especially wlw are a majorly oppressed class, it’s important not to distance the wlw/sapphic/lesbian/bi women community from womanhood even if individual members are not all women. They identify with the community for some reason that is connected to womanhood even if they don’t identify as women themselves (I’ve heard “SG attraction to women is my only connection to womanhood” -- that is still a connection to womanhood, even if it’s not a female identity)

Also I thought that I had mentioned the overlap between wlw and nblw in my post but I must have deleted it. They definitely are hand-in-hand, but not the same. Many people are both, but as you’ve said, nonbinary encompasses so many different variations of gender that nblw can’t be automatically considered sapphic/wlw. There are nblw who are man-aligned and nowhere near comfortable with any sort of feminine identity and calling them sapphic is just not right, not unless you also want to call bi men sapphic. I’m gonna assume that you meant that sapphic inherently includes SOME nblw (this is a common issue with nonbinary discussions, people saying anything inherently includes nonbinary people which makes it sound like it includes all nonbinary people rather than just some). Like not two different boxes, but a venn diagram. But yes, nblw who identify close/connected to wlw definitely should be welcome in wlw spaces.

hi im the op of that post u rbed. im down to answer any questions you might have. im not saying to separate lesbianism from women at all. im saying that not every lesbian is a woman so referring to lesbians as women as a whole excludes lesbians who arent women. that doesnt mean stuff like the double venus symbol/the term wlw/the phrase lesbians and bi women are wrong. im just saying dont generalize an entire groups gender based on their sexuality. (1/2)

lesbians are a diverse group and all of us deserve to be included in discussions about lesbianism and positivity posts about lesbianism so i was just asking people to use more inclusive language. 2) i definitely include amab people who identify as lesbians. 3) bigender nonbinary people are still nonbinary. even if theyre comfortable w the term man they still aren't a binary man therefore they can absolutely be a lesbian. (2/3) (sorry, i underestimated how many asks this would take)

and 4) idk about the gay men thing. i personally have seen people talk about how nonbinary people who are exclusively attracted to men and nby people should absolutely be allowed in spaces for gay men, however i'm not that involved in the mlm community seeing as i'm a lesbian. all i can say about this topic is that the reason i'm bringing nonbinary lesbians up is bc im a nonbinary lesbian myself and i'm tired of being invalidated (3/3)

Thank you for being civil despite my challenging your post, I really appreciate it! Like I said I am conflicted about all of this, because I do understand not identifying as a woman while being a lesbian on an individual level. And I also think it’s important to consider diversity when talking about a community. Plus, I also know that “who is a lesbian” is something that unfortunately varies between people. I’ve heard the definition of lesbian being:

Women exclusively attracted to women

Binary women exclusively attracted to binary women

Cis women exclusively attracted to cis women

AFAB people exclusively attracted to AFAB people

Non-men attracted exclusively to non-men

Anyone except binary men who are attracted to anyone except binary men (this includes nonbinary men and people who are both binary men AND nonbinary or women)

Women attracted to women

Non-men who are NOT attracted to men (attraction to women not required)

Women who chose not to date men

There might be more but I can’t remember them at the moment. Some are very fringe and I’ve only seen it once or twice.

My point with that is that really no matter how you talk about lesbians you’re going to alienate some people who identify as lesbians. So like:

Lesbians are women (i personally include the usage of “women who love women” in this because it is literally calling lesbians women)

Lesbians love women (again, wlw)

Lesbians are not men

Lesbians are AFAB

Lesbians are binary women

And so on...

I get how a post that says something like LESBIANS ARE WOMEN can be alienating to lesbians who aren’t women but identify somewhere close to womanhood, but I fail to see how the term “wlw” is much better than that.

And I have to mention bi women here too. People like to act as if bi women are worlds different than lesbians, and yes the two groups do have different experiences, but they overlap a LOT. Lesbians are made to feel like they aren’t real women because of heteronormativity, but bi women are as well. There is a dimension missing (lack of attraction to men) but being attracted to other women is definitely something that can make a woman feel like she is doing gender wrong. And unfortunately, there is no way to separate bi women from the term woman like there is with “lesbian.” Bi women are sort of forced to either embrace their label as women or reject it entirely and go with nonbinary — you can’t say “don’t generalize bi women as being women!!!” Even though bi women are just as capable of having difficulty identifying as women as lesbians. But we still recognize that there is a difference between a wlw who doesn’t identify as a woman and an agender person. And even that seems like an impossibility — a woman who doesn’t identify as a woman.

I just think that if we’re going to start setting rules such as “don’t refer to lesbians as women” then we need to go all the way and examine the phrase “women who love women” plus recognize that bi women are in this struggle as well. Truly, I think it is easier for nonbinary wlw to just accept that they are women in a sense, because otherwise they can’t be women who love women, and not get offended when someone refers to wlw as women (which is literally what happens by using the phrase wlw).

And perhaps accepting that they’re NOT women/wlw could be easier as well, being a nonbinary person who loves women is a beautiful thing and we would love to welcome you into the trixic label. Honestly, I think a lot more people would identify as nblw if we were more visible and accepted.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

hi im the op of that post u rbed. im down to answer any questions you might have. im not saying to separate lesbianism from women at all. im saying that not every lesbian is a woman so referring to lesbians as women as a whole excludes lesbians who arent women. that doesnt mean stuff like the double venus symbol/the term wlw/the phrase lesbians and bi women are wrong. im just saying dont generalize an entire groups gender based on their sexuality. (1/2)

lesbians are a diverse group and all of us deserve to be included in discussions about lesbianism and positivity posts about lesbianism so i was just asking people to use more inclusive language. 2) i definitely include amab people who identify as lesbians. 3) bigender nonbinary people are still nonbinary. even if theyre comfortable w the term man they still aren't a binary man therefore they can absolutely be a lesbian. (2/3) (sorry, i underestimated how many asks this would take)

and 4) idk about the gay men thing. i personally have seen people talk about how nonbinary people who are exclusively attracted to men and nby people should absolutely be allowed in spaces for gay men, however i'm not that involved in the mlm community seeing as i'm a lesbian. all i can say about this topic is that the reason i'm bringing nonbinary lesbians up is bc im a nonbinary lesbian myself and i'm tired of being invalidated (3/3)

Thank you for being civil despite my challenging your post, I really appreciate it! Like I said I am conflicted about all of this, because I do understand not identifying as a woman while being a lesbian on an individual level. And I also think it’s important to consider diversity when talking about a community. Plus, I also know that “who is a lesbian” is something that unfortunately varies between people. I’ve heard the definition of lesbian being:

Women exclusively attracted to women

Binary women exclusively attracted to binary women

Cis women exclusively attracted to cis women

AFAB people exclusively attracted to AFAB people

Non-men attracted exclusively to non-men

Anyone except binary men who are attracted to anyone except binary men (this includes nonbinary men and people who are both binary men AND nonbinary or women)

Women attracted to women

Non-men who are NOT attracted to men (attraction to women not required)

Women who chose not to date men

There might be more but I can’t remember them at the moment. Some are very fringe and I’ve only seen it once or twice.

My point with that is that really no matter how you talk about lesbians you’re going to alienate some people who identify as lesbians. So like:

Lesbians are women (i personally include the usage of “women who love women” in this because it is literally calling lesbians women)

Lesbians love women (again, wlw)

Lesbians are not men

Lesbians are AFAB

Lesbians are binary women

And so on...

I get how a post that says something like LESBIANS ARE WOMEN can be alienating to lesbians who aren’t women but identify somewhere close to womanhood, but I fail to see how the term “wlw” is much better than that.

And I have to mention bi women here too. People like to act as if bi women are worlds different than lesbians, and yes the two groups do have different experiences, but they overlap a LOT. Lesbians are made to feel like they aren’t real women because of heteronormativity, but bi women are as well. There is a dimension missing (lack of attraction to men) but being attracted to other women is definitely something that can make a woman feel like she is doing gender wrong. And unfortunately, there is no way to separate bi women from the term woman like there is with “lesbian.” Bi women are sort of forced to either embrace their label as women or reject it entirely and go with nonbinary — you can’t say “don’t generalize bi women as being women!!!” Even though bi women are just as capable of having difficulty identifying as women as lesbians. But we still recognize that there is a difference between a wlw who doesn’t identify as a woman and an agender person. And even that seems like an impossibility — a woman who doesn’t identify as a woman.

I just think that if we’re going to start setting rules such as “don’t refer to lesbians as women” then we need to go all the way and examine the phrase “women who love women” plus recognize that bi women are in this struggle as well. Truly, I think it is easier for nonbinary wlw to just accept that they are women in a sense, because otherwise they can’t be women who love women, and not get offended when someone refers to wlw as women (which is literally what happens by using the phrase wlw).

And perhaps accepting that they’re NOT women/wlw could be easier as well, being a nonbinary person who loves women is a beautiful thing and we would love to welcome you into the trixic label. Honestly, I think a lot more people would identify as nblw if we were more visible and accepted.

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

This is really my only hangup about lesbians who aren’t women. I’m 100% okay with the concept on an individual level, and I understand the concept completely, however on a wide scale it doesn’t seem good to separate lesbianism from women in the way of like, it being wrong to refer to lesbians as a whole as women. Like... is the double venus symbol wrong too? Is the term “wlw” wrong? Is the phrase “lesbians and bi women” wrong?

it's lesbian visibility day so here's a friendly reminder that not every lesbian is a girl! nonbinary lesbians exist and they're still just as much lesbians as any other lesbian. referring to lesbians as girls/women/ladies/etc generalizes the lesbian community and excludes nonbinary lesbians from their own community

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

I use female and male to refer to gender rather than anatomy but “male/female people” as a phrase sounds like it’s trying to specify anatomy because “men/women” is shorter and also more commonly used, and yet the longer and more awkward / less common way of saying it was used instead.

look im sympathetic but this is some colorblind ass nonsense. how are we going to address oppression if we can’t use the only language we have........yes actually male people are most likely to be perpetrators of violence and yes female people are most likely to be victims of this particular kind of violence. you literally are only hurting everyone with this

[mint-chocolatey-chip]

It’s difficult for me to conceptualize, personally. It feels so two-sided. On one hand, I saw a clear difference in how I was treated by strangers and family depending on the gender of my partner, and I enjoyed the benefits of being considered “basically a cishet.” But on the other hand, it was a constant reminder that I only had those benefits because I just happened to be in a socially acceptable relationship. If I decided to change that one day, all of that would go away. It made it all feel so fake.

Like... yes I was invited to family gatherings I had previously been banned from, I could take my partner anywhere and not fear for our safety, I didn’t have to worry about the future irt “will I be able to marry you” and all that (pre marriage equality). But I always felt like I was on thin ice, like if I ever expressed the wrong kind of attraction or let slip to strangers or people around me that I was bisexual then all of that respect would go up in flames. Then I would be a cheating liar to everyone and my partner should leave me for their own good.

Bi people being able to have certain rights and access to certain privileges only when they are in m/w relationship isn’t an aspect of bisexual privilege: it’s a symptom of societal biphobia.