#DO YOU WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ERASURE OF LESBIANS?

[lesbiradshaw]

trying to convince the people who followed me for writing a mlm pairing to also read my fics where two women kiss

[bi-sapphics]

I’m a lesbian and I really don’t care if bi people say dyke or not. I’m not trying to be all “not like other lesbians” but a bi woman is going to be called a dyke by a homophobe, a homophobe will not care if you correct them and go “um ACTUALLY im bisexual.” Also why would I go up to every sapphic using the word dyke and go “ARE YOU LESBIAN????” Idk I’m only like one lesbian out of a bajillion so maybe it doesn’t matter what I say

!!!

[jewishvitya]

Why do we do this thing where we're like "You wouldn't do this to another marginalized community."

I just saw a video of a bi person going "people act like the only bi woman is white and middle class, but they don't do that with lesbians or gay men." I immediately thought "Yes they do, though."

I've seen people say it with "people wouldn't say it about Jews" as a talking point against racism, with examples that I've definitely seen happen to Jewish people. "People wouldn't say this to a Black person" about comments I've seen Black people receive.

"Don't tell me I can heal my invisible disabilities with enough willpower, people wouldn't say that to a wheelchair user!" - they say it.

It's rare that a bigoted mindset doesn't replicate itself across groups. There are specifics for each marginalized group, but if a shitty attitude exists towards one, it most likely exists towards others. If you haven't seen it - it's probably your positioning.

If you want to discuss an issue you experience, you don't have to use another marginalized group as an example of someone who has it better. If you're wrong and they do suffer, you just contributed to erasure.

[nothorses]

I think one of the ways that tranandrophobia seems to distinguish itself from the other forms of oppression it is connected to is in the way it attempts to convince you it is indistinguishable and that transmascs are always just collateral damage to everyone else's "real" problems.

One example is the very blatent tirf claim that transphobia on its own isn't real, that it is all misdirected transmisogyny, and that transmascs only experience oppression due to our association with transfemmes.

But there is also the insistence that anti abortion laws and similar things are targeted at cis women and therefore are "women's issues" - transmascs shouldn't complain about being excluded because it "isn't about us". Same with homophobia and butchphobia. Even the terf talking point that they are just protecting "little cis girls" from making irreversible mistakes pretends that actual the transmascs being harmed is just an accident and not the goal.

Trying to talk about transandrophobia is a constant stream of "It's just transphobia. It's just misogyny. No, you can't call your experiences misogyny because that isn't about you. You can't call yourself a lesbian or a butch or compare your oppression to lesbophobia. It isn't about you. Yes, terfs hurt you, but you aren't their main target. This isn't about you. Yes, you need abortions and experience medical misogyny, but you can't talk about it because this isn't about you. You were sexually assaulted because of misdirecred misogyny. Don't make it about you. You've never contributed to the history of gay men, or lesbians, or the trans community. It isn't about you. Those cross dressers weren't trans. Stop trying to make women's history about you. You can't reclaim cunt or faggot or dyke because those words aren't about you. I don't care how many times you've been called a tranny. That word isn't about you. Why must you make everything about you?"

Because sure, transmascs exist, and we might be impacted by everyone else's oppression, but it is always thought of as a theoretical consequence of what is really going on, if it is thought of at all. Transmascs are not considered to be oppressed in our own right.

This idea gives the lawmakers plausible deniability, allies an excuse to ignore us, and feeds into transmasc erasure. If we are never the actual target to begin with, then clearly, we can't be uniquely targeted. The law makers don't need to be held accountable for their transandrophobia because it isn't like they are trying to hurt transmascs, right? We need to let the real victims speak, the ones being targeted on purpose.

Nobody ever sees the way it all piles up, and even if they do, they think "well it's just an accident, right? If we fix the main problem, then this fringe issue will go away on its own" without ever considering that transandrophobia isn't as rare, fringe, or accidental as society wants it to appear and that actual effort needs to be put into dismantling it.

It isn't that they actually believe that transandrophobia isn't real. It's that they just don't believe it is about transmascs. Because even if we are the common denominator, we are still just collateral damage and could not possibly have anything of value to say. Because as collateral damage, our issues are never our own and thus never need to be discussed on our own terms.

100%. And I think this is exactly what this sort of cycle of erasure depends on.

We are erased, our problems are erased, and our oppression is erased, which means it's easy for people to ignore us, our problems, and our oppression. There's so little evidence, so few people talking about it, and they never really see or hear anyone name us in this violence, so surely, it isn't about us at all! It must be about the people they know about already, the problems they know about, and the ones who are always readily named in these conversations.

If we're speaking up, there's no reason to believe us; if anything, we come under scrutiny for trying to talk about these issues nobody else can see. We must be crazy, hysterical, whiny and overdramatic, or perhaps malicious. We're stealing attention, stealing space, and stealing help. We might be victims, but we are incidental and unworthy victims.

And ignoring us, our problems, and our oppression means we continue to be erased. Which makes it easier to ignore us, and erase us, and easier to perpetuate violence against us. And so on.

It's understandable, in a way, for people to ignore us; most people don't know about any of this in the first place, and when they do, they're not inclined to take any of it seriously. Even if they do see convincing evidence that our problems are real and worth talking about, it's easy for that to be a one-off that they eventually forget about. Everyone else is talking about everything else, so we sort of fade away.

It's not their fault; they're not trying to ignore us. They just haven't learned to recognize violence against us, and they just don't seek us out, and can they really be blamed for that? Can they really be blamed for the violence that continues because they and others don't see or try to stop it? We're so hard to find in the first place. You know, because we've been so thoroughly erased.

There are a lot of people who've been fighting this for a long time, and even more we don't-- and probably won't-- ever know about, who've been fighting for even longer. I think it's getting better; the organized backlash against us is, imo, a sign that our reach is getting stronger and wider. But it's a hard cycle to break.

[moliathh]

people accusing alutegra shipper of homophobia and lesbian/aroace erasure are so funny because ONE, as a fan, i cannot make or remove a queer representation of a media, that act can only be done by the creator/producer/corporation/ institution themselves, the fanworks you make for a ship does not held the same weight as official materials. It's a bit insulting that you are comparing fanworks made out of love (that could very much be made by queer people) to a phenomenom driven by hate and bigotry and was a contributing factor to the oppression of queer people. Throwing around big words, accusations, that were meant for something very serious and harmful to refer to something unharmful just because you dislike a ship is not a very LGBTQIA+ friendly thing of you to do. Do you think of homophobia so lightly? Accusing REAL queer people who are being subjected to homophobia on a daily basis because of something they love?

SECOND OF ALL, let's assume that your headcanon is true (i haven't speak of the fact that its basic fandom etiquette to treat headcanon as something personal and not universal and don't harass other people over unharmful difference in opinion). Let's say, Integra is a lesbian, which is a headcanon. Did we collectively forget Alucard is canonically genderfluid? Yet you're referring to Alucard/Integra as a "cishet" ship? Does a queer person get stripped of their queer identity when they participate in a relationship that is male/female presenting? I thought we are about "queer rep"??? How convenient it is to deem him a cis het man and headcanon Integra as a lesbian to make the shippers look bad. Oh, and on the way of watering down queer identity into a caricature, you are also claiming ace people cannot have sex and it's disrespectful to depict ace people having romantic/sexual relationship. As if asexuality isn't a spectrum ranging from "little to no attraction" and the definition of sexual interaction is very loose, especially for queer people. Do you even care about queer people at this point?

And before any of yall jump me, i am queer myself how can i be homophobic my bitches are gay I AM GAY. I'm so sick and tired of yall justifying hate by pretending to care about the alphabet mafia. DO YOU REALLY? It was never that serious, just say you hate the ship and get tf going. I think its perfectly fine and cool to hate a ship just because you hate it, i do! I have headaches and want to vomit when i see ships that i hate but i dont feel the need to moralize it nor do i have to bring it to the face of the shippers or bad talking them. What really piss me off is how you drag real QUEER people through the mud for some fucking little pixels. Go outside, have some empathy. When fascism and censorship comes to wipe us out none of us gonna be spared because you are "one of the good ones" so stop fucking eating at your own community omg if you dont like something and its unharmful then BLOCK

[redheadbigshoes]

Lesbophobia is when you try to silence lesbians trying to talk about our own experiences and issues.

Lesbophobia is when you want to speak over lesbians about our own experiences and issues.

Lesbophobia is when you tell lesbians specifically that we’re a little bi, that our sexuality is fluid or that our sexuality shouldn’t be so restrictive.

Lesbophobia is you trying to include cis and trans men in lesbianism.

Lesbophobia is you trying to promote or contribute to corrective rape rhetoric.

Lesbophobia is you not recognizing, accepting and supporting the fact that lesbians are not only attracted to women, but we’re also not attracted to men.

Lesbophobia is you not recognizing we’re also oppressed for not being attracted to men.

Leabophobia is you promoting or contributing to lesbian erasure.

Lesbophobia is you thinking lesbians who’ve had experiences with men before figuring out their sexuality are less lesbians or that they’re deep down bisexuals.

Lesbophobia is you assuming lesbians are [insert thing] based on generalizations or negative stereotypes.

Lesbophobia is you thinking a lesbian is not really a lesbian (or less lesbian) if they don’t fit the stereotypes you believe in.

Lesbophobia is you thinking lesbians are only lesbians because of lack of experiences with men.

Lesbophobia is you thinking lesbians are only lesbians because they had bad experiences with men.

Lesbophobia is you thinking lesbians will eventually find the right man.

Lesbophobia is not recognizing, even though we have some similarities with other sapphics, that we’re a whole separate group and that we do face unique experiences and issues that other sapphics don’t (or that they face differently).

Lesbophobia is not allowing lesbians to feel proud of their sexuality.

Lesbophobia is comparing lesbians with our oppressors or treating us as if we’re the oppressors.

Lesbophobia is you thinking lesbians don’t suffer as much as other LGBTQ+ people so that’s why we shouldn’t be taken seriously or don’t deserve to be listened to.

Lesbophobia is thinking lack of attraction to men is something negative.

[valyrfia]

why do u insist on using lesbian when u talk about loving women? it's rlly biphobic and exclusionary. as a bi woman, it feels like ur erasing bi experiences and identities. not every woman who loves women is a lesbian, and by using that term so broadly, u're just contributing to the erasure of bi women like me. it's rlly disappointing and hurtful. maybe consider being more inclusive with ur language next time. 🤷‍♀️

Hey anon. Really not sure what prompted this but I never intend to be exclusionary towards any sexuality. I talk about lesbians and being a lesbian on this blog with all the stuff that entails (comphet, etc.) because that's my life and my experience and I can't speak for bi women because I'm not one. But if you and any other non-lesbian wants to add their two cents to any sort of queerness talk on here then you're more than welcome to!

[kotalloxaloy]

Ok, so I finally finished Burning Shores and I have several thoughts

Below the cut because I'm sure many people haven't played and I don't want to spoil anything!

I liked the DLC! I had a lot of fun. I thought the setting was really interesting, I liked the new characters and the storyline definitely drew me in and I fucking LOVE the new mount (PSA you can take it to the main map and go underwater in the expanse of ocean that you can't swim through. There is nothing interesting down there and it pops up the warning that the current is too strong, but you can swim through it no problem.)

Yes I'm sad there was no Kotallo. It's fine, I wasn't expecting him, and we only saw Sylens and Alva so the other GAIA gang wasn't there either. I am extra disappointed that we can't go talk to him more!!! But I think that it's cool that Kotallo traveling to the sundom for the new embassy is canon now. I think lots of fics put forth the idea that Kotallo would act as a diplomat for the Tenakth to the Carja in Fashav's place. Cool that it's canon now.

I chose to kiss Seyka. Normally I pick the brain options but if I'm given an opportunity to kiss a girl in games I do it! Now, I haven't had the time to process everything well enough to pick apart the romantic story line (was it rushed? was there enough lead up to it? did it make sense?) but I do think Seyka is a good match for Aloy- the whole "I broke my tribe's rules and used technology I wasn't supposed to to help me accomplish an important personal goal" is very reminiscent of Aloy using a focus despite Rost insisting that it was dangerous.

Yes I still ship Aloy with some people who are not women. The devs have not said and nothing in the game has confirmed that Aloy (or Elisabet or Beta) is a lesbian. I myself am a bisexual woman and I am a big stickler about bi erasure. I also headcanon Kotallo as Bi. and plenty of other characters for that matter. The main thing that FW and Burning Shores confirmed for me is that Aloy (and Elisabet, and presumably Beta since they have the same DNA) is queer and I absolutely love it. More queer women leads in video games!!!

The fucking villian. Oh my god. I know I just talked about being bi but goddamnit they cast SAM WITWER as the villian??? I literally have never been so disgusted by a character I was attracted to. I've had a thing for Sam Witwer for like 13 years back when he was on Being Human. I got his autograph at a con and have it displayed in a DnD book that he contributed to. I didn't even realize it was Sam Witwer until I walked into that room with his face plastered all over the walls. Before that we only heard his recorded voice and saw holograms of him-and that never looks or sounds exactly like the character. But I walked by that first photo on the left when you walk in and I literally yelled out "SAM WITWER?" listen I could go into it more as to why i'm horrified by his character but I am a Sam Witwer fan so I can and will appreciate his performance.

Walter Londra is disgusting and I literally yelled "GROSS" out loud with the way he looked at Seyka's sister. I'm so glad Seyka was like "ABSOLUTELY NOT" and put a stop to it because if I had to watch one more second I might have puked.

I liked the theme park. Dinos are fun.

I play on story mode so maybe this is because I'm on the easiest setting, but I was able to walk on and in the lava and only go caught on fire once I was like waist deep in it. that was weird.

I would like significantly more underwater content with the Waterwing. I absolutely love it an I was just going up and down into the sky and into the water. extremely cool and I just want more underwater stuff to do with it.

There was an NPC with vitiligo which I thought was neat.

I almost cried at the end of Gildun's little side quest. And when Aloy gave him a focus I just thought it was so sweet!

I kind of felt bad for Evelyn Day? I know everyone had it bad, lots of people ended their lives before the Faro Plague hit them, and I know she cheated on her husband with his best friend which is kind of a dick move. but that last recording was very sad.

SYLENS 😭😭😭 I know I probably feel more attached to him knowing that Lance Riddick has passed away. But the end there, Aloy was SO MEAN to him! I was like "NO ALOY! He isn't doing this to prove he is the smartest!!! He decided to stay when he saw the friendships you formed! You showed him that there is value in human connection and that maybe there is a little hope when people work together!" I think she saw the good in him in the end but she was so snarky about it!

I probably have more thoughts but that's enough for now. I'm not very interested in an discourse about the devs offering a love interest or if the story of the dlc was good or whatever. I had fun, I can't wait for Horizon 3, and I still love Kotallo and ship him with Aloy but I'll be just as happy if we end up with Seyka or another WLW ship in the end for Aloy. The end. Please enjoy the queue that I just filled for you!

[listlessnessss]

i don’t always get political w it because i do feel like questions of desire and legitimacy pollute the logistics, i’m not about to beg trutrans (that now is taken to mean ‘no longer pretrans/repressed’, btw) people for things when i need to be a better “cis”ally to them, and i’m only sorting out desire and legitimacy. i understand how politically and personally offputting i can be, as a concept, to actual trans ppl. yet of course those desires are deeply political in nature, but i don’t see how politics can be just this stand-in for desire that alludes to desire when transmasculine desire is a thing that doesn’t yet exist politically because it’s denied/dismissed as something else or actively derided as the purview of [some kind of privilege]. i was a tiktok theyfab in 2020-22 and often saw people’s transmasculine desire dissected apart down to each of its components and exposed for how fucked up their desires are, all the things (fatphobic, racist, a white-woman fragility moment, homophobic, transmisogynistic) but the thing is, i don’t even think that *all* of those critiques are unwarranted, but one is left to wonder… since i assume everyone “in my orbit”(that’s what it’s called, i think, lmao) on here is at least tertiarily involved with the project of creating a coherent if-and-only-if, divergent-not-convergent, transmasculine sense of meaning/narrative where one is severely lacking or entirely absent (think: why is there no ftm whipping girl? and take it as a challenge) without being this logical so-as-follows ‘mirror counterpart’ to transfemininity NOR incredibly butch cis women, because those sets of comparisons are bound in many important ways to be false, to not apply. this is where the TQ complaint of ‘erasure’ is a real thing, even if 14 y/o’s feeling invalidated in the moment don’t exactly articulate its further implications very well. my point is/was when i was deep in tiktok theyfabbery, is a perfect feminist politic a mandatory prerequisite to creating such a narrative? (think about the particular moral mandate along the lines of ‘being a man is about respecting women’: yes, yes absolutely you need to, but without it, does one cease to be a man? or are you now this empty, voided, “masc-not-butch” “nonbinary is just a negation, it’s not a thing” person having your white woman moments, having your cake and eating it too) everyone agrees that the edgy teenage phase of many newer trans people is offputting and uncanny, albeit necessary for growth and development, but i do wonder if coming out the other end of transmasculinity therefore becomes this careful disavowal, deliberately manufactured to be apolitical and uncontroversial, and if political, aligned with feminism the way lesbians are. i also find the tMRA shit, (MRAshit wrapped in a toothpaste flag) to be weird and offputting and not ideal politically and evidence of a total unawareness of how one is perceived. thinking about that tweet that said “it is not up to ftms to fix masculinity, go to the gym lol” and if you want, you should, you can, but an implication is that by virtue of who we are and what we want, we are particularly ill-equipped to be able to simultaneously take it seriously wrt ourselves while also being capable of meaningfully contributing to philosophy, discourse, (culture) politics without leaving ourselves behind in some way. if that’s not the other classic TQ complaint of “infantilization”, then i’m not sure what is. it’s put up or shut up, and if you knew me, you’d find that i shut up in real life, as is ideal while i’m in a proto- state and still politically uncanny and incoherent. while i myself am a gaymaxxer(my cope is that i’m in part like this because i’m gay-male-ideated not because i WNBAM),

i found that i became far more robustly left wing and feminist and all that once i stopped trying to think about myself as a cis woman, once i listened to disk horse on “toxic masculinity” and “male loneliness epidemic” shit, i see some breadtuber spaces as having struggled with creating a similar meaning/story for cis men that isn’t just anti-woman. i also heard there that pre-leftist cis men were afraid of, but had to make peace with, the supposed threat that transfemininity posed to the security of their gender identity and expression, and of those who remain men, some get to realize that they’re queer. I heard quite deep and meaningful comparisons made between cis women’s and trans women’s lives and struggles for meaning. the matrix style gender theory, “fuck gender, be a woman”, was all of our redpill, however hard to swallow. but of nobody’s fault but my own, i was at this time beginning to not internally identify as a woman, and realized that there’s no such thing as a transmasculine redpill. still no story, still no sense of meaning, still I should learn to feel/be the butch or be like the other girls and okay with that, a thing i’m just not and never was. transmasculine desire is still shameful and unspeakable as is the opposite in any other part of life and the political landscape—

i can identify this problem, yes, but i’m not smart enough nor in real life enough nor materially affected enough to be an ideal candidate to begin to create the solution, but i think the boy hypno content is a step in the right direction, for sure, though there may yet be unforeseen social/political consequences.

[menalez]

while bisexuals who claim to be "ex-gays" are a problem, and contribute to the erasure of natural ssa (both bisexual and homosexual) these people are also. literally involved in homophobic religions that praise them for this behavior and punish them for exhibiting ssa. so I don't understand why these bisexuals (who are being victimized) are to blame for this. heterosexuals impose this behavior on bisexual and homosexual people. homophobic religious freaks don't want any ssa to exist, whether you act on it or not (bc sinful thoughts are as bad as sinful actions to them), which is why they don't call these people bisexual either. they are "ex gays" or "reformed gays." not bisexuals who have come to the light or anything like that. being bisexual is not a preferable thing to these monsters. it is deeply depressing that homophobic heterosexual religious people can strip others of their most basic identities like this, and I don't understand why you think these bisexuals are just having a good time being repressed like this. these aren't bisexuals who ended up in an osa relationship and are claiming to still be "soooo gay" (which is absolutely wrong and stupid), they are no longer allowed to talk about their full identity. a heterosexual woman with 14 kids by age 35 is obviously being subjugated. her telling other women and girls that this is good and what they were "made to do" is wrong, but these ideas didn't spawn in her head from birth, she was groomed to think that, and deserves a certain amount of compassion if we hope to get her out of that situation. please offer compassion to bisexual people too

don’t get me wrong, i don’t think they’re the root of the problem and ofc they’re the symptom of an existing problem and are then used as tools to promote these things. they allow for themselves to be tools to promote conversion therapy, homophobic rhetoric, “corrective” rape, etc. my point, though, wasn’t “look how evil bisexuals are and how they’re the root of all gay ppl’s problems!”, my point was that someone pretending to be gay while FULLY AWARE that they are bi is not equal to someone pretending to be bi while fully aware that they are gay. gay people faking being OSA on top of being SSA, deliberately, are not then used to promote the idea that bisexuals should undergo conversion therapy or pray to satan or w/e to cure themselves of their opposite sex attraction. it’s not used to promote the idea that if bisexuals try with being the same sex enough, maybe they’ll stop being bi and become gay instead. on the other hand, bisexuals who pretended to be gay are absolutely used as prime examples of conversion therapy “working”. they even are the primary people you’ll see in the countless propaganda videos about “ex-gays” and “ex-homosexuals” and “ex-lesbians” etc. the harm done is more than just validating homophobes’ beliefs that homosexuality is a choice.

also tbh yes the ppl who promote conversion therapy rhetoric are to blame for their own actions. even if they’re also victims. if a woman, for example, uses her platform to promote misogynistic rhetoric, no she’s not the root of misogynistic rhetoric nor is she the main problem in the situation but she absolutely is to blame for her own actions ie the promotion of prejudiced ideals.

the claim that “sinful thoughts” are equal to “sinful actions” to religious people is purely false. go watch many of the ex-gays and you’ll see them talk of sometimes “struggling” with same sex attraction but being praised + praising themselves for not acting on it. you’ll see plenty of “ex-gay” movements place emphasis on not acting on SSA more than on reducing the “thoughts” of SSA. religious people absolutely do view acting on one’s same sex attraction as worse than just having thoughts. they say so repeatedly.

so yes, they are victims in their own right, as are gay people who promote this shit. but no, that doesn’t justify them literally promoting conversion therapy and corrective rape and homophobia. i think you missed what my point was tho because you’re arguing things i wasn’t talking about, i was saying pretending to be bi as a gay person does not have equal harm to pretending to be gay as a bi person, not that bi ppl are the root of all evil or something.

[pashterlengkap]

To hide our history is to deny our existence: Kids must learn what queer folks have given the world

I first started teaching myself queer history when I came out to myself in high school, and it opened my entire world. I began to understand how I wasn’t alone. I had entire generations of ancestors stretching out across the centuries who had lived and loved in ways I saw myself reflected in, and their stories validated for me that my feelings were not a phase, made up, or part of an invented trend of the young. Feeling connected to these historical figures and seeing role models in history when I didn’t see many in the media or my personal life showed me the future I could have as a queer person. This is what I wanted to bring to LGBTQ+ youth when I started my career sharing our history, first with a mobile app 10 years ago and since then speaking to over 200 audiences across eight countries, writing four books for young people, and writing two page-a-day calendars.  Related: Burmese trans women find freedom & dignity as spirit mediums Trans women still face discrimination in Myanmar, but while they perform the role of spirit medium, they are temporarily revered. When I share this heritage, audiences are almost always amazed to learn about the contributions of queer people throughout all of human history. Alan Turing, a gay man, invented the computer that we all use today. Lynn Conway, a trans woman, helped to develop the microprocessors inside our phones and tablets. Glenn Burke, a gay man, co-created the high five. Katharine Lee Bates, a lesbian, wrote the lyrics to “America the Beautiful.” Martine Rothblatt, a trans woman, invented satellite radio. Goodnight Moon and Where the Wild Things Are were written by queer people. Queer people’s contributions to the world are in our everyday lives, straight and cisgender people’s too.  Get the Daily Brief The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you: Subscribe to our Newsletter Ten years ago, the backlash to sharing this history was nothing like it is today. Our history was barely ever taught in schools and we worked to get it shared there, but lawmakers and individuals were not organizing in these numbers to actively ban it from ever reaching the classroom or library. LGBTQ+ history education has gone from struggling to break out of erasure and silence to becoming a hot-button cultural flashpoint. According to the Movement Advancement Project, seven states have laws that explicitly censor discussions of LGBTQ+ people or issues throughout all school curricula. Five more require advance parental notification of any LGBTQ+-related curricula and allow parents to opt their children out or require them to opt-in. Before these legal attacks, LGBTQ+ history was already rarely found in the classroom. According to a 2022 Human Rights campaign survey, less than one in seven LGBTQ+ youth had ever received any LGBTQ+ history education.  Two of my educational books — Queer, There, and Everywhere for teens and Rainbow Revolutionaries for middle graders — have been challenged and removed from specific schools and libraries in multiple states, in addition to not being allowed in the states that have bans on talking about LGBTQ+ people in schools. The places that participate in this censorship remove the ability of librarians and teachers to curate their own collections and curricula as they have been hired to do. They keep youth from learning a complete version of history and lead us down a dangerous path of limiting freedom of speech.  “All students deserve an education that is complete, honest, and accurate,” Rob Sanders, author of several LGBTQ+ history books for children and a former teacher, tells me. “To not be taught the whole of history is to be taught inaccurately. To me, the teaching of LGBTQ+ history is not controversial, but not teaching history accurately and completely sure is.” According to PEN America, Sanders’s picture book Pride: The Story of Harvey Milk and the Rainbow Flag was tied as the most banned picture book in the U.S. in the 2022 school… http://dlvr.it/Sxwk9h

[just-wublrful]

i know the lgbt community is supposed to be a front of intersectional solidarity but as a bisexual person... sometimes it doesn't feel that way? from my experience, aro/ace people cant relate to conversations about attraction (which is of course completely valid but it doesnt make me feel welcome in an lgbt space), the monosexuals don't like ti when you talk about the opposite gender (again, valid, but thats an important aspect of my identity too) and twice in a single sitting i had pan/multisexual/non-labeled people go "oh i just don't factor in gender im my attraction you know? anything goes" and i'm sure they didn't mean anything by it but that basically told me "i don't have a clear understanding of bisexuality and am therefore more likely to perpetuate biphobic misconceptions" and i don't know!! i don't know

[bi-sapphics]

whats the difference between lesbian repulsion for men, and febfem repulsion for men?

ive been so confused about whether im a lesbian or febfem. with either one i wouldn't engage with men, but if im febfem, and wouldnt be romantic or intimate with a man ever, how do i know im attracted to them?

okay, listen. i'm gonna assume you're using "febfem" in good faith like i once did, but unless you actually are a radfem on my blog for some weird reason then please don't. i literally use the term "bi sapphics" instead to emphasize wlw attraction and i'm not sure how you missed such an obvious replacement for a problematic term if you're asking me somewhat-advanced questions like this. i'm not mad, just a little shocked you're talking positively about febfems in my inbox and i wanna address that first.

but to answer your question, at the end of the day the most general answer is you're the one who indicates that. if you think comphet is valid, you might wanna look into the lesbian masterdoc - you can probably just google it or search for it on twitter or tumblr. i have some beef with it personally and am very critical of it because it definitely contributes to bi erasure and was written without the consolation of bi women so it kinda tends to list very common bimisogynistic experiences as lesbian experiences, buuuuut i think it does actually provide some genuine and helpful relief in the longrun. i think comphet is conditionally real, all in separate lesbian contexts, wlw contexts, and women in general contexts because that's just how the patriarchy functions. maybe see which one is affecting you the most and figure out if that helps.

but like i said before all that, i really can't tell you because i don't live your experiences. what i will say is that i used to identify as a lesbian for a year because i went through something very similar, but then i realized my attraction to men just wasn't comphet. it might be the same for you, it might be different. maybe you'll go with bi sapphic and later realize it actually was comphet instead. nothing you do from here will be morally wrong and you shouldn't let anyone, especially radfems & exclus, tell you otherwise, because they will. even then, you could be super perfectly confident and still end up being wrong in the future. really only you can figure this out, with help of course, but i can't give you a definitive answer. hopefully my suggestion will get you somewhere.

if other lesbians and bi women want to add on, please feel free!! all opinions on the "am i a lesbian?" masterdoc are welcome.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Since the very conception of the motion picture, the LGBT community have been represented on-screen in some form. An early example is Algie the Miner (1912), a short silent film which follows the effeminate Algie (Billy Quirk), who enjoys kissing cowboys. In order to marry someone’s daughter, he heads west to prove that he’s a man. While this is quite an outdated stereotype of being gay, the portrayals have varied greatly over time. Only recently is LGBT representation becoming more positive and common. However, when it comes to portraying bisexuality on-screen, it still seems to be a difficult task.

Many narrative tropes have been birthed through filmmakers trying to show sexuality on-screen and most of them contribute directly to the overall erasure of bisexuality in cinema – usually with ambiguous portrayals, negative stereotyping and characters needing to pick a side. Not all instances are problematic, but their prevalence isn’t helping to combat the stigma that bisexual people face. There are three main tropes when it comes to depicting bisexuality, which is infidelity, picking a side, and the horrible husband. They’re usually found together in a common narrative that erases bisexuality, whether intentional or not.

Infidelity

There’s a long-standing stereotype that bisexual people are more likely to cheat on their partners and are incapable of commitment. This is a trope that is heavily carried in some of the most well-known depictions of bisexuality. Typically, a female protagonist is engaged or married to a man, but she meets a lesbian woman and they become involved sexually and romantically, leaving the protagonist torn between two lovers. This happens in Imagine Me & You (2005) when Rachel (Piper Perabo) falls in love with lesbian flower shop owner Luce (Lena Headey), who provided the flowers for her wedding to Hector (Matthew Goode). It’s a fairly average film that could’ve been amazing had it acknowledged Rachel’s bisexuality, but it’s still one of the better ones considering Perabo and Headey have amazing chemistry.

For some reason, bisexual characters are often in serious relationships when they’re suddenly sexually awakened. This happened to Rachel right after her wedding because she happened to meet the right woman. While this type of experience does happen in real life, it’s always the go-to narrative for films about women realizing they’re not one-hundred-percent straight. In these instances, the same-sex love affair acts as the conflict within the narrative – this can create good drama when done right, but it gets boring and bisexual characters deserve better than constantly being portrayed as cheaters. People are not more promiscuous or likely to cheat on their partners because of their sexuality, but these tropes are constantly telling people otherwise.

We deserve to see bisexual characters whose sexuality isn’t the main narrative focus or who at least explore their sexuality outside of a relationship. Appropriate Behaviour (2014) is a good example of this as Shirin (Desiree Akhavan, who is also the film’s writer and director) is a bisexual Persian American woman who is keeping her sexuality a secret from her judgemental family, while also attempting to rebuild her life after breaking up with her girlfriend. Seeing bisexuality portrayed on-screen is another place where people pick up more stigma or acceptance, and with bisexuality it, unfortunately, seems to be the former. This is why bisexual filmmakers like Akhavan are better suited to portraying the experiences of bisexual men and women than others.

Picking A Side

When the protagonist is in conflict with her sexuality, the people around her usually wonder if she’s a lesbian now – despite them being engaged or married to a man. This can be seen in Below Her Mouth (2010) where Jasmine (Natalie Krill) begins having an affair with Dallas (Erika Linder). When her husband finds out, he tells her “You’re a lesbian” but she tells him that she loves him and nothing has changed between them. It seems impossible to grasp that a person could be attracted to both men and women. Bisexuality is erased.

Some films insinuate that the protagonist isn’t necessarily bisexual or even a lesbian, it’s just that they’re attracted to this one woman only and no others – they’re an exception! This is the kind of impression you get from Below Her Mouth, but also from other films such as Imagine Me & You and Elena Undone (2010), which isn’t particularly helpful for lesbian representation either. In Imagine Me & You, Rachel tells Hector “You are my best friend. That was enough before, and it will be enough again.” This implies that Rachel was never truly attracted to him in a romantic sense, thus implying that she’s a lesbian. While this could be a case of compulsory heteronormativity, it seems problematic as it’s never discussed or explained. Avoiding discussions about sexuality – as most of these films do – are what contribute to this trope massively and result in misinterpretation and erasure.

Films as new as Netflix’s Alex Strangelove (2018) also feed into the idea that bisexuality is a stepping stone to picking a side. Alex (Daniel Doheny) prepares to lose his virginity to his girlfriend but finds his plans derailed when he’s attracted to another boy. He spends most of the film questioning his sexuality and at one point thinks he’s bisexual. The film does highlight biphobia which brings attention to this problem, so it’s disheartening at the end when Alex realizes he is gay and not bisexual after all. The set up for Alex Strangelove was perfect for a bisexual love story and, while it’s still positive LGBT representation, it’s a shame it didn’t stick with that. It’s even rarer to see bisexual men portrayed on-screen, so it would’ve been really rewarding.

It’s important to acknowledge that bisexuality is a comfortable place for some people to be while they’re trying to accept that they are gay – and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, there still seems to be some widespread discomfort when it comes to sexuality being fluid. For bisexual people, there isn’t any side to pick – they’re not torn between polar opposites, nor are they confused. They aren’t on the fence, they’re on both sides of the fence. Nevertheless, films continue to portray bisexuality as a personal conflict that needs resolving, and it does this by putting bisexual characters in a situation where they’re having affairs. This makes their sexuality the narrative conflict, which is wholly problematic in itself.

The Horrible Husband

The protagonist’s fiancé or husband is usually abusive or passive in the relationship, and thus portrayed as the antagonist. She is then drawn to a lesbian woman who treats her so much better and gives her the attention she deserves. Sometimes it’s as though these films are saying that lesbianism is the cure for a dissatisfying heterosexual relationship. This contributes to bisexual erasure by suggesting that bisexual women can only be happy with women and never with a man because they’re horrible or not good enough. It also perpetuates the idea of picking a side – almost telling bisexuals that they should just be lesbians instead.

This trope is found in films like Elena Undone, where Elena (Necar Zadegan) meets Peyton (Traci Dinwiddie) who is a famous lesbian writer. Elena’s husband Barry (Gary Weeks), however, is a homophobic pastor. Elena Undone is actually loosely based on director Nicole Conn’s real-life romance with Marina Rice Bader, but the film itself isn’t great. It’s also shown in The World Unseen (2007) as Miriam (Lisa Ray) quietly follows the customs of 1950s South Africa, alongside dealing with her abusive husband Omar (Parvin Dabas). Miriam becomes empowered to change her circumstances when she meets and falls in love with free-spirited cafe owner Amina (Sheetal Sheth).

A much better film that deals with this trope is Bound (1996). Lesbian ex-con Corky (Gina Gershon) arrives at an apartment building to start work as a painter and plumber. She soon finds herself being seduced by Violet (Jennifer Tilly) who lives next door with her boyfriend Caesar (Joe Pantoliano). Violet explains that they’ve been together for five years and he’s a money launderer for the mafia. She wants to escape and make a new life for herself, so she and Corky plan to steal $2 million of Mafia money and blame it on Caesar. The horrible husband trope actually works well in this film because the women plan to screw Caesar over and it doesn’t use Violet’s infidelity as the main narrative conflict – it’s a lot more original, which isn’t surprising as the first directorial feature film from the Wachowski Sisters. Bound would’ve been much less effective if Caesar was just a regular guy who Violet hated, but she has a better motive with the drama surrounding his violent mafia connections.

These three tropes are collectively the entire plot of Imagine Me & You, Elena Undone, The World Unseen, I Can’t Think Straight (2008), Kiss Me (2011) and more. It’s a shame that there isn’t always a huge focus on the actual relationship between the two women in these films. It’s more about them hiding their relationship and because they officially get together at the end, we never get to see much of what their life is like as a couple. They all feature very similar themes, meaning that when it comes to telling the stories of bisexual characters, the narrative is rarely diverse. Romantic comedies in general always follow the same beats which is fine, but these tropes for bisexual characters either erase their sexuality and/or display it as a problem.

These tropes can still work well (like with Bound) depending on certain aspects of the narrative. Infidelity works well in Carol (2015) due to the 1950s setting. Carol (Cate Blanchett), who is in the process of divorcing her horrible husband, and Therese (Rooney Mara) have to hide their relationship due to homosexuality not being accepted during this time. This adds an extra layer to the narrative, giving actual depth to why things are happening the way that they are. There’s also Disobedience (2017) where it works well due to the Orthodox Jewish culture. Ronit (Rachel Weisz), who is considered bisexual, returns to the community for her father’s funeral to find her childhood friend Esti (Rachel McAdams) married to a man. Esti describes herself as a lesbian woman in a relationship with a man, which is disheartening but works in the film’s world. Disobedience also plays through the infidelity trope very differently to other films, allowing it to be more effective.

The Erasure

In films with bisexual characters, it’s rare that the word “bisexual” actually comes up. It’s mostly ambiguous, implied or erased completely by the protagonist seemingly picking a side. It’s constantly reinforced by narrative tropes that are set up for dramatic entertainment, with no real intention of representing sexuality with genuine care. Erasure also happens due to words like “gay” being used as an umbrella term when referring back to certain films. Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Call Me By Your Name (2017), for example, are often referred to as gay films on social media due to the gay relationships portrayed, However, the characters are portrayed to be sexually fluid/bisexual due to the nature of their relationships with women. It also happens with films like Blue Is the Warmest Colour (2014) which is always painted as a lesbian love story when Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is clearly bisexual. It’s not necessarily bad to use gay and lesbian as umbrella terms, but it, unfortunately, does contribute to bisexual erasure. We should be bringing more attention to bisexuality on-screen and pointing it out specifically when we see it.

One of the biggest erasures is the portrayal of bisexual men. They appear much less frequently than bisexual women. The most recent example that comes to mind is Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in Velvet Buzzsaw (2019), but the word bisexual was never used and he was portrayed as being promiscuous, which fits into the negative stereotype (although the film is satire so perhaps it can be excused). Some better, or at least more interesting, depictions of bisexual men are still out there and can be found in films such as Velvet Goldmine (1998), Kaboom (2010), The Comedian (2012), The Lobster (2015) and Moonlight (2016).

If anything, bisexual characters are usually left out of the bury your gays/dead lesbian syndrome trope. It’s very common both in film and television for gay men and lesbian women to be killed off in some dramatic way, such as in Brokeback Mountain, The Fox (1967), Les Biches (1968), Lost and Delirious (2001) and A Single Man (2009). Bisexual women have been killed off quite a bit in television – like Marissa Cooper (Mischa Barton) in The O.C. – but they’re relatively safe in film and hopefully, it’ll stay that way.

Acknowledging Bisexuality

It is disheartening that bisexual representation on-screen isn’t as good or as frequent as gay and lesbian representation. We’re also at a time where it could be massively improved, but now we face the barrier of “queer” as another umbrella term. It’s wholly unhelpful when not everyone identifies with it and when we want bisexual characters to say the word bisexual on-screen. We want to be acknowledged. Bisexual actress Stephanie Beatriz made sure her bisexual character in Brooklyn Nine-Nine got to say it earlier this year, because that word means something to certain people and the impact is great. Hopefully this will start to happen more in film going forward.

There are definitely films out there where the word bisexual is actually said, like in Appropriate Behaviour, Kiss Me, Velvet Goldmine and Margarita with a Straw (2014). It’s rare that we hear it so when we do it’s pretty exciting. In addition to these, other films that feature positive and/or complex portrayals of bisexual characters in general (and not the previously discussed tropes) are: Cabaret (1972), Chasing Amy (1997), Black Swan (2010), Atomic Blonde (2017) and Tully (2018).

There have been many positive and negative depictions of bisexuality, but the majority of them aren’t great or feed into the biphobia and the erasure of the identity. Filmmakers need to do better when it comes to portraying bisexual characters and their stories. It’s always helpful when bisexual people themselves get a voice, whether as writers, directors or actors. For some reason, although there are exceptions, most straight male and lesbian filmmakers have trouble portraying bisexuality both positively and accurately. They essentially give the message that bisexuality doesn’t exist or is an inner conflict that needs to be resolved. We must do better because one day someone will be watching a film where a character says “bisexual” and their life will suddenly fall into place.

[redheadbigshoes]

How do you feel about bi/pan women/nb people calling themselves dykes? like having terms bidyke, pandyke ect.

I've seen mixed opinions honestly but it always came off weird and wrong to me.

Dyke is literally a term for lesbian I don't get it, is it an "mspec" thing?

I feel like these women (who are not lesbians) calling themselves dyke are white women desperately needing to have a slur that they can use for themselves.

They use the argument “historically bi and pan sapphics have been called dyke” or “I’ve been called dyke before” to say how it’s also their slur to reclaim.

1) Historically bi and pan sapphics have been called dyke because of biphobia and bi erasure. Because society thought (and still thinks) people are either gay, lesbian or straight.

2) The reason why some bi and pan sapphics are called dykes is also due to biphobia and bi erasure because people call them that assuming they’re lesbians.

So I think bi and pan sapphics wanting to use dyke and reclaim that slur are not only being lesbophobic (erasing and ignoring the fact that it means lesbian), but they’re also contributing to their own identity’s erasure and to biphobia. Not to mention if we go by their argument straight women who’re called dykes can also reclaim the slur even though they’re not part of the community.

In my opinion non-lesbians wanting to reclaim the dyke slur are one step away from wanting to reclaim the lesbian label for themselves.

[that-stone-butch]

The trans butch cusp is terf shit. You can't be a trans man and a lesbian because trans men are men and you can't be a MAN and a lesbian. Trans butch cusp literally just reinforces the idea that trans people aren't the identity we say we are. It's really sad to see you turn your back on trans women like this.

okay, several things:

1. how do you know i'm not a trans woman, clown shoes? seems pretty transphobic of you to assume that, as a butch, i am immediately at odds with trans women and transfem people and not potentially a member of that group. it's ultimately not your business, but it's a pretty telling assumption about me for you to make 🖕

2. it seems like you're framing bigender identity in a pretty reductive way there, you might want to listen to bigender people explain their experiences before going all-out keyboard warrior in my inbox

3. it's literally a pervasive line of terf rhetoric that strawman 'trans rights advocates' are stealing all the butches by *convincing* them to become trans men and nonbinary and etc, contributing to 'butch erasure' which is a made-up concept intended to pit the supposed inherent 'feeeemaleness' of butch identity against trans people; so please explain to me how being *supportive* of bigender people, of trans people exploring new labels on my inbox, is suddenly somehow ALSO terf shit

3. no literally, explain it to me. give me cogent evidence that any of this has anything to do with terfs, in my DMs, outside of your boiling down bigender people to 'you can't be a MAN and a WOMAN at the same time!!1!' nonsense. if you can actually give me a decent explanation that doesn't also involve accusing me of 'turning my back on trans women,' i'll give it some thought

4. what the fuck do you even expect me to do about it? someone hops into my inbox and they're trying out a new identity. it literally was a non-question i just told them i was happy to see them happy. you want me to blow up at strangers on the internet for not using labels that are convenient for me to understand? who am i, you?

5. it is so fucking infuriating for this community to accuse me of being a terf or 'turning my back on trans women' literally every time i protect my personal information, defend bisexual people being butch/femme, or patiently support people exploring new labels. 'terf' actually means something, it's an actual term for an actual hate group, you ought to get your fucking head tested.

again, if you have an actual coherent understanding of this label you'd like to share, i'm all ears. but maybe try not being such a fucking dick about it.