#and how comfortable they are with repeating homophobic rhetoric

[lanaevyssmoved]

I've been pretty active in the Mass Effect fandom back in the day and a lot of my trans mutuals got shat on by cishet women for playing maleShep (they were more comfortable playing as him) and got called misogynist for it even though they didn't say anything misogynist. and I remember a lot of the same women had a meltdown when people referred to Shepard as they/them when speaking in general, and what I'm trying to say is - yeah, the terf and radfem rhetoric is very much a thing in fandoms as I saw it first-hand.

It was very upsetting to see my trans mutuals being scared of sharing their male (or nb) OCs, because you were automatically labelled a misogynist. I used to identify as a cis woman at the time too and even then, it was baffling to me that they'd come to this conclusion. I know how actual misogynists act like and they were far from that. A lot of my mutuals, including me after I started questioning my gender, left the fandom because we felt we didn't belong.

gonna talk about this undercut because ngl i feel a tad unsafe in this topic

i'm seeing this happen in the bg3 fandom with posts in the main tags where tav is being she/her'd exclusively and happy endings for characters being nuclear family/pregnancy and nothing else is a true happy/good ending, and the second trans folks and gay men tried to talk about this becoming the only accepted view for many people they were stomped into silence again for ruining peoples fun... by people not even realising this stuff is rooted in terf/radfem rhetoric. they just comment 'pregnancy is ok actually, let people have fun' without even checking the original OPs blogs and seeing how transphobic and homophobic they are.

we don't get upset because we're not being included. we're upset because we know what the fuck is going on and we can see it happening in real time and are trying to stop it before it becomes so widespread we don't feel safe enough to talk at all.

this also happened in the dragon age fandom and it's just. maybe rpg fandoms are just not safe spaces! that sucks!

i'm really sorry your friends and you had a rough time. i'm also sorry this is a repeating behaviour, no matter how many years pass. there's never a lesson learnt here, i suppose

[golddustdyke]

june is NOT pride month. it’s the month when people on the internet who have never been in irl lgbt spaces or have irl lgbt friends will be like “lgbt people need to STOP sucking and FUCKING during pride parades” and then when you go to a parade, instead of seeing the promised sucking and fucking, you get pelted with gay pens from bank of america 

[rouge-the-bat]

uh oh another person whos repeating allll the same bullshit thats totally havent been shouted out to me a million times before ! seriously yall, i havent changed my mind about bi lesbianism even after being attacked and told to die so many fucking times, wtf do yall think ur gonna achieve here lol.

lesbian isnt an exclusive term and never had been, learn some queer history idiot! i literally have sources on my bi-lesbian blog in my #history tag! and plenty of people use it as an umbrella term still bc ~gasp~ people use words different than you 😱

literally explained the nonbinary situation in my last ask but like whup dee doo that doesnt matter bc u clearly talk for all enbies ever huh? what do you think about very man aligned enbies also? are they all inherently excluded or included in your eyes? (rhetorical question, dont actually want an answer obv youre an idiot) again not all enbies are comfortable with lesbianism since people like you think its ~oooh so strict~ and others deem it ~exclusively women loving women~ and a lot of enbies dont want to be possibly perceived as just a woman, even if theyre woman aligned! (while some man aligned enbies are perfectly comfortable with fallin under lesbian attraction bc, identities are complex!) if yall fucks would finally let lesbian be defined fluidly and can sometimes hold exceptions depending on person, like every other gd fucking queer label, then i think this issue would be resolved since more enbies would feel less like theyre just being seen as a women due to exclusionistic lesbians.

yeah bi women or other mspec ppl love women just the same as lesbians, i literally never say otherwise, so idk why ppl always say that to me lol? like it feels YALL have some internal biases yall need to convince urself through, not me. lesbian has simply included bi women for forever before lesbian separatists (aka radfems) deemed them as lesser (and aiding in their own oppression) and tried forcing them out. / but oh yeah me calling myself a bi lesbian is tooootally saying i think bi women are lesser forms to lesbians /s 🙄

people who have exceptions to their sexuality or EXTREMELY extremely rare attraction to certain genders is not just "bi with a preference" unless they feel like that accurately describes them, but a lot dont. me as an example! if ud look at any of my posts i have a really complex/confusing attraction due to being arospec and cupioromantic, and dont see how defining gender-based orientations extremeley rigidly can work well since gender is extremely complex and fluid. along with a ton of other factors that makes me feel best described with bi lesbianism. bc ppl by nature are complex and dont need to and cant always fit into lil neatly defined terms, darling

you probably also deem the split attraction model as an aros and aces only thing too, huh? because sexuality being complex and different than yours is just soo so impossible right?

"invalidates both lesbians an bi women" ah yes becuase thats totally an objective, factual statement! and no lesbians and bi women who are not bi lesbians would ever support bi lesbianism huh? except, oh ive met plenty who do! surprise surprise a lot of queer people support other queer people who are different than them and have complex identities, bc thats what the whole fucking community is for, lol. stop acting like you speak for everyone of a label, queer people are not monoliths ♡

maybe branch out of ur lil exclusionist circle for once and try talking with more queers with complicated orientations and stop trying to fit all of us into rigid boxes 🤪 trying to assimilate the queer community in a neat and tidy and ~respectable~ way isnt gonna win you any brownie points with the homophobes, honey

stop drinking the radfem koolaid, also. all of this literally falls right into their rhetoric. a lot if not all of exclusionism does, actually

[konaizumi]

Tonhon Chonlatee ep 9 reaction/thoughts

- Ooo, pang, pulling the mom card, we stan a supportive friend who keeps her friend from doing stupid things

- pang is me the entire hug scene, it was so cute (also podd/ton looks like he gives the best, warmest hugs), also very happy to see na being genuinely excited for chon in this scene

- i’m so happy to see ton so willing to be open and public about their relationship, i think it really goes to show how much the homophobia was really repeated rhetoric from ton’s family and society an not necessarily his core beliefs

- amp getting trash thrown at her is what she deserves, go off on her ai!

- i dislike nueng bc he’s a rapist but i am really glad he called out amp like that and left her

- I can’t get over how cute and sweet ton is wtf

- ton keeps patting his head through the whole episode and I am here for it

- lol at chon watching 2gether

- i’m so glad the sister is accepting and cool about it, I hope this helps them next ep

- I, for a solid three seconds, when miriam got all shy and called her gorgeous, thought she was gonna hit on the sister and I was ready to support this 100%

- the cute little hand heart, ai being shy and hiding behind ni’s shoulder

- that’s right, ton, not good feelings left for that bitch

- also it’s cute that ton and baipai are close enough that ton can tell she had a fight bc she’s eating ice cream, i always love a good sibling relationship

- i’m just so glad chon has a backbone, even if he’s not the most confident or aggressive, he’s never let amp walk all over him in any of their interactions and it’s very refreshing, other bls need to take note

- on the other hand, chon, please have a bit more confidence in yourself, “even if i am a replacement, i don’t care, i just want to be next to ton,” sweetie, is that really something to brag about?

- however, “are you making fun of me?” “who else am i talking to?” was pretty great, petition for more sassy chon

- of all the sassy, mean, serious, or rude comebacks i thought ton was gonna say, “move, your in the way” is better than anything i could’ve come up with

- chon wiggling his shoulders when he said dancing shrimp

- very glad baipai and itt’s storyline did not end with itt being gay, the cat is adorable

- every time i start to take this show seriously, gmmtv loves to remind this show is just a crack video in disguise, what tf is this roleplay? (no complaints tho, i wish more shows wouldn’t take themselves so seriously)

- #getmiriamawife2021

- “it doesn’t mean ton doesn’t love me anymore” bitch yes it does!

- damn, just when i thought amp couldn’t get more homophobic

- props to ton for standing up for himself and his relationship

- i knew this was going to happen, yet i was still hoping somehow it wouldn’t, like I get why ton did it, he’s the kind of person who wont back down from dare if you call him chicken, but still, couldn’t he just not have?

- im not going to rag on chon (too much) for jumping to conclusions bc i will say i think they set it up well in a way that it’s believable for chon to assume things given 1) the video that pretty clearly shows ton kissing her freely, 2) his own insecurities and doubts regarding whether he’s just a substitute and whether ton actually likes him, a man -- so while i hate the faux cheating plotline, they at least set up better groundwork than some other shows

- ton ai and ni drunk singing is very cute

- miriam deserves everything, she really acts as an audience insert, we all wanted ton to get slapped (lowkey was hoping she would just deck him the face, but the slap was good too)

- ton riding the motorcycle while not entirely sober is giving me anxiety

- i fucking love chon’s mom so much, her relationship with chon has the same energy as pete’s dad from DBK in that not only does they know their sons are gay, but their comfortable talking and joking about and i love it

- I also like how she doesn’t just jump into overprotective mom mode and completely kick ton out or anything, like she really gives the sense of an adult who has gone through romantic struggles and can see that ton is sincere and didn’t mean to hurt chon

- how do you knock so much that your knuckles bleed that much

- you know what? chon said “you cheat, you’ll never see my face again” and my boy commits, I respect that

- the paper airplanes are pretty cute, very reminiscent of kornknock

- so, about the faux cheating plotline as a whole, i don’t like it, and i think the homophobic parents could’ve provided plenty of drama for two episodes with time left over for cute tonchon moments, but, i will say, this particular one isn’t bothering me as much as they usually do and i’m not entirely sure why? I think one part of it is ton is being pretty mature and responsible about it, admitting that he was in the wrong, telling chon’s mother that it’s “a bit of both,” not trying to push all the blame on amp. I think another part of it is that it’s going to resolve pretty quickly, they haven’t let this fester with a bunch of sad dramatic scenes of them making eye contact across campus, ton went after chon immediately and he’s not going to stop until he’s cleared everything up. And, as i said earlier, it didn’t feel like this was entirely out of nowhere or really unbelievable like faux cheating plotlines often feel like

- anyways, in conclusion, i actually really like this episode, i really love seeing ton just fully embracing being in a gay relationship and not taking shit from anyone about it, I’m excited for the final episode

[cognito-ergo-hazard]

when people say “politics” they very often mean “disagreement”

this is how you get claims that appear on their face to be entirely nonsensical, such as the original star wars movies being "apolitical" despite being about a rebellion against an empire best known for its hamfisted allegory for nuclear weapons and the fact that its soldiers are openly and directly named after nazi soldiers

a star wars fan who's mad about disney "injecting politics into star wars" doesn't actually think that the empire strikes back, a story in which cloud city is threatened with annihilation unless its leaders assist in the capture of militant dissidents, is without political messaging or themes, as fun as that strawman is to poke fun at

what that fan is actually complaining about is that the politics of star wars, which they previously agreed with so completely that they may not have been fully aware of them, have been replaced to some degree with politics that they do not already hold

this shift varies wildly between fans, with possible extremes ranging from "i hate black people and seeing one hold luke's lightsaber is a sign of the impending race war to exterminate white people" to "the new movies appeal to people i don't get along with, and i'm worried that those people will edge me out of my hobby"

both of those positions are socially unacceptable to openly admit to, albeit for very different reasons. the first is a naked self-identification with white-nationalism and at least one of its associated conspiracy theories, while the second is an admission of deep vulnerability and anxiety that, despite being an entirely valid worry, resembles racist, homophobic, and misogynistic rhetoric closely enough that a majority of people are likely to assume the worst

using the word "politics" as a shorthand for "politics i disagree with" both frames the speaker's own opinions as unambiguous apolitical truth and obscures the different opinions held by different people using the shorthand, as well as unifying those people behind a simple, easily repeatable talking point

at one end of the spectrum are the social outcasts who, for one reason or another, are only concerned that the media that comforted them during hard times is leaving them behind and that the only communities where they've been able to find friendship and support are going to become less and less welcoming to them. these people are excited for the emergence of a community around "keeping politics out of media” because community is the bulk of what they're worried about losing in the first place

at the other end of the spectrum are the white supremacists, the neonazis, and the cryptofascists. these people are also excited for the emergence of this community, because it means that they can point to the earnest social outcasts as plausible deniability, claiming that they, too, are simply trying to protect their favorite media from corrupting forces, all while recruiting from those same social outcasts who are so desperate to be part of something that they aren't particularly choosy about what it is they're part of

all of this is also why privileged people often reply that they're "not interested in politics" when topics of institutional injustice are raised. it's not that they have their heads so far up their asses that they genuinely think changing things is political but refusing to change them isn't, although that is, again, an immensely satisfying strawman to kick down the hill

what people who say that mean by it is, usually, that they're not interested in having a disagreement with you about topics where disagreements regularly devolve into open conflict or, at best, consist of two parties talking past each other for hours without accomplishing anything

very few people are so disconnected from reality that they are genuinely unable to distinguish between "politics" the activity in which parties trade favors and reputation in pursuit of the power they need in order to achieve their goals and "politics" the umbrella category that includes all topics related in any way to power, who has it, or how it is used

there’s a saying that the best way to get people on your side is to ask them what they need, shut up and listen, and then give them what they need. in today’s political landscape, one thing that a lot of people need is to feel like they’re being listened to

the democratic and republican parties have done a really good job of presenting themselves as an all-encompassing binary between which there can be no understanding. if you’re not a democrat, you’re either a racist, a misogynist, and a fascist, or you’re okay with those who are; if you’re not a republican, you’re a bleeding heart liberal who hates america, doesn’t know anything about economics, and wants to murder babies

the state of the world and the actions of the people in power affect everyone, and everyone knows it, and everyone cares about things that affect them, even if they don’t have the energy or even the inclination to care about anyone else, but lots of people have also learned the hard way that actually talking about any of these things will only ever get them one of three reactions:

if the person they’re talking to disagrees with them, the conversation is liable to turn into a fight that might very well be the end of a longstanding friendship

if the person they’re talking to agrees with them and has dedicated a greater amount of energy to caring, that person is likely to shame them for not caring enough

if the person they’re talking to agrees with them but hasn’t dedicated as much energy to caring as they have, they are likely to feel like a jerk for pushing the topic

in that last case, they may even be correct, since that’s the only way a lot of people know how to talk about important things. none of those possibilities are any good, and it’s extremely understandable that a person would misidentify “politics” as the thing to be avoided, rather than “partisan arguments and performative outrage,” especially when those make up the vast majority of mainstream political conversation

TL;DR: if you want to have a meaningful discussion with someone who “doesn’t care about” or “isn’t interested in” politics, or even someone who’s just burned out, what you need to do is take the pressure off and listen to them on their own terms

[ebp-brain]

thoughts on “gay panic”

Here’s my two cents on the notion that no one should use the term “gay panic” to mean “I’m gay and panicking” because of its violent history: I respectfully disagree.

I know the history of the term–the appallingly homophobic legal strategy of the “gay panic defense” that claims a perpetrator of a homophobic and/or transphobic hate crime lost control due to the victim’s sexual and/or gender identity. This legal strategy has been used to justify, and mitigate the sentence for, homophobic and transphobic hate crimes, and is still sometimes used today. It is unequivocally an appalling and violent practice.

This is actually why I am not disturbed—why I am in fact cautiously hopeful—to learn that the phrase “gay panic” is being used in a very different way: because the reclamation of a term used to describe a violently homophobic and transphobic practice can help undercut the belief system behind that practice. Specifically, this much more benign use of the term “gay panic” helps rewire the psychological link between queerness and terror. It does not end violence or deny trauma; rather, it works to diminish, even trivialize, the morally bankrupt but culturally powerful notion that someone’s sexuality and/or gender identity is panic-inducing. Let me say again: this does not mean pretending no queer people are subject to violence. It means refusing to treat a transparently homophobic and transphobic legal defense with the gravity that gives it its continuing psychological and cultural power.

I want to break this down into smaller parts.

1. I am, frankly, pleased and relieved that many young queer people don’t know about the “gay panic defense.” Is it important to know our history? Yes. Is it important to know when that history continues into the present? Yes. Does not knowing the history of a term signal a certain amount of privilege? Possibly, though it also signals a failure of various school systems to educate students on queer history. What it also means, though, is that there are a significant number of queer folks, many of them on the younger side, whose primary association with the phrase “gay panic” is “I’m a disaster gay and I’m freaking out because that queer person is so attractive!” They hear the words “gay” and “panic” together and they come up with the sweetly self-deprecating conclusion that they are the ones panicking. They didn’t grow up believing that the words “gay” and “panic” are inevitably linked by someone else’s homophobic and/or transphobic panic. Should they be aware that many people did and do grow up that way? Yes! But I don’t resent them for their feelings of safety and comfort in their identities. I want them to feel safe and comfortable.

2. I don’t think the term “gay panic” is actually, in and of itself, a slur. The legal strategy of the “gay panic defense” is an abhorrent practice. But we are talking about language here: is the term itself so contaminated by its violent history that it is scorched earth, never to be inhabited again? There’s something about slurs hurled in schools and on the streets that can make them conjure a visceral gut-punch reaction; they have been shouted during acts of intimidation and violence. I may not agree that slurs cannot be reclaimed, but I understand the logic. But I’ve never heard of anyone saying “I’m in a gay panic right now because of your sexual and/or gender identity” while beating someone up. The violence of the legal system is real and terrible—that is, again, not up for debate here—but the term “gay panic” (or “gay panic defense”) seems qualitatively different from a slur because it is, basically, a bullshit rhetorical attempt to make hate crimes seem psychologically justified. The term is meant to obscure violence, to distance the perpetrator from the crime, to deny guilt. It’s a trick of language.

3. It is therefore the ideal sort of term for queer people to play our own tricks on. We must not deny that many queer people live in terror. We must also remember that our goal is to reduce that terror. Language shapes cultural attitudes; the words we say affect what we believe. They are not an alternative to direct political action or learning about our past and present; rather, they are part of action and of learning. The way we use language matters. I’m not saying “whatever, ‘gay panic’ is just words; it doesn’t matter how we use the term.” It does matter. That’s the point.

4. You may disagree with my analysis of the phrase and argue that it is a slur, that it is itself a violent term with the capacity to evoke centuries of trauma and oppression. You may certainly feel discomfort or fear upon hearing it, sense the specters of trauma and terror creeping closer, remember that you are subject to the violence of strangers. I certainly have no business telling you that you don’t or shouldn’t feel this way. Nor do I have any right to, say, post the term on your blog to upset you or somehow shove it in your face despite your discomfort. However: queer people may feel differently from each other. We may not agree on what words are acceptable, or on how we want to use language. This does not necessarily correspond to some sort of sliding scale of privilege, in which all the people with more privilege think one thing and all the people with less think another. It may instead correspond to differences of opinion on the most effective form of political action. For me, seeing the term “gay panic” used to describe something silly that originates from queer people themselves, some enjoyable flustered response upon noticing someone else who is publicly, gloriously queer, saps some of the power of the “gay panic defense” by trivializing the alleged “panic” and by rerouting the associations between the words “gay” and “panic.” This works not because the “gay panic defense” is irrelevant history but because it is powerfully relevant in the present moment. It works not because the violence itself is being trivialized but because the pretense that there’s some legitimate psychological phenomenon justifying that violence is being scoffed at and given exactly the amount of respect it deserves. Furthermore, we don’t wait to reclaim negative terms only after they are no longer in use; we wrest them away from people who hate us and make language our tool to dismantle that hatred. We steal the weapons in the middle of the battle and break them in half.

To sum things up: I do not need you to agree with me. We can be queer people who don’t have the same political strategies. That’s fine. I do think it would be helpful to remember that if some queer people don’t know the history of a violent term, that represents not only a failure of education and/or initiative but also the hopeful possibility that that term, and the violence to which it is linked, looms less large in the consciousness of many queer people. I also think it would be helpful to consider that others may read a post like “don’t use x term” as an opening of the door to a discussion. It’s fine if you are too drained of energy and resources to do the work of educating people, but surely “don’t use x term” is itself an act of educating people that might suggest to readers that you are in fact knowledgeable and prepared to further educate them. Finally, I want to repeat: queer people may disagree amongst themselves about political strategies. In a place like Tumblr, which runs on reblogs, dialogue, and continued interaction between people and ideas, it seems to me that disagreement should generate thoughtful debate, not an immediate pile-on to shut down those who disagree, to literally stop them from saying what you don’t want them to. I do not mean you should put up with homophobia and transphobia. This argument does not apply when Tumblr users are being blatantly, purposely homophobic and transphobic. I mean that when queer folks disagree amongst ourselves on how we use language, the continued use of that language to hash things out is the most useful response.