#but that doesn't make it any less real

[goldpilot22]

yesterday I watched the first 3 episodes of princess tutu with some friends. very good show, wasn't expecting it to be so... emotionally heavy ig? but in a good way. the 3rd episode really hit me hard, I had to stop after that and just cry for a while.

[stonebutchery]

it's kind of baffling to me that entire sub-groups of queer folks endured a decade of being singled out and targeted for being asexual, aromantic, bisexual, pansexual, nonbinary, polyamorous, etc. and i have yet to see any substantial apologies from people who were directly responsible for causing genuine harm. i find it completely bizarre that there are so many people who want to sweep their past contributions to widespread lateral aggression toward specific queer groups under the rug like it didn't happen so they can wash their hands of it... there are people who are irreversibly traumatized because of this. there are people who took their lives because of it.

i'm wording the post like despite the fact that exclusionism targeting these groups (and more) continues to persist partly because it was a really frighteningly common trend to harass people just because they were ace, aro, bi, pan, nonbinary, poly, etc... and it's crazy to me that many of the people who were affected by this massive multi-pronged public online bullying campaign against the 'unacceptable types of queers' are the ones still receiving messages like "my url got put on an aphobe blocklist in 2016 because apparently a post i made making fun of asexuals got some teenage asexuals harassed and i still distrust asexuals to this day because of that" ...are you fucking kidding me?

we will never achieve any kind of unity as a queer community while we are insisting upon ignoring the hurt that lateral aggression has caused, and acting like the burden lies on the shoulders of the people who were harmed to forgive the people who harmed them and 'just move on', many of whom are not sorry for what they did! or they don't consider what they did to be wrong! how is that not deeply disturbing and troubling to more of you?

03/06/2024 edit: i’m putting a complete moratorium on this post because i am really sick and tired of having my point not only completely misconstrued and distorted entirely but also weaponized against transfems (particularly in replies i have decided to delete about how “ugh yes, exclusionism, and now transfems are bullying transmascs”) i find that really sickening and i’m demanding that it stop, and i can make it stop by turning off reblogs. so i have.

my objective in writing this post was never to request an apology from people who have been laterally-aggressive exclusionists in the past. i don’t think we’ll ever get more than a handful of apologies from those people, anyway. my point was that it was pretty terrifying to witness and experience a lot of lateral aggression that transferred from the real, in-person world to the deeply online spaces back into the real, in-person world in a really fucked up feedback loop and being a young queer person during this time and having that shape me, snd shape the experiences of my queer friends who have been traumatized by it.

however, it is absolutely unacceptable to me that the issue of transmisogyny is so blatantly overlooked by our entire community. for decades, transfems have experienced oppression and exclusion from transmisogyny-exempt women and queers. their exclusion from political queer liberation movements has caused many of the major schisms within our community we are still having arguments about to this day. if you want collective queer liberation, you must uplift transfems. there is no other option. you don’t get to write off all transfems just because one person who happened to be transfem was mean to you online or something.

i have answered and responded to way too many conspiracy-brained transmisogynist reactionaries to allow this post to keep fucking snowballing with people writing paragraphs in the tags about “transmisandry” or “transandrophobia.” please get your heads out of your asses.

this absolutely is the transmisogyny website, as always, and the place where all basic textual comprehension skills go to die, apparently.

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.

[foundfamilywhump]

see like the thing with 'carewhumpers' as a concept to me is it just like... i know this is prrrrobably not really how it's meant but something skeeves me out about the idea that kindness or caretaking mixed in with hurting someone can somehow meaningfully complicate or dilute the harm done to the point of making that character no longer a 'whumper' whereas someone doing the same 'bad' things but not ever being gentle or caring for them would just be a straight-out whumper. when like... that's how 90% of irl abuse dynamics work? so i just... don't really get the point, i guess. like to me it implies something about the 'care' provided somehow mitigating or combating the harm done that. i just do not personally appreciate or enjoy.

[deeplovelydark]

this is so sad but I can't exactly explain why. obv julian is his friend but to call worf of all people his friend. but maybe it's not worf in particular but some semblance of. I don't know how to call this state of mind but it's something closer to happiness than garak initially expected to feel in exile. that state of mind that he found on ds9. lunches with julian and odo and occasional chances to do something for cardassia and the amusement the ds9 crew provides him. my first thought was that is it's just meaningless self pep talk but garak isn't one for meaningless self pep talk. maybe in a moment of distress he finally said something true and vulnerable.

[commsroom]

honestly, i wonder a lot about eiffel's past relationships, when 1) the way he describes his relationship with kate gives the impression it was intense and burnt out quickly (though i can definitely imagine they were very on-again-off-again for quite a while as well), 2) if we go by gabriel urbina's estimate that he imagined anne was about ten by the end of the show, eiffel was about 23 when she was born. they broke up before anne was born, and i don't think they were ever together again after (i would imagine kate was probably adamant about that, and about prioritizing anne's well-being), but eiffel was obviously still in her life, in some capacity, until kate got full custody.

eiffel's got that line in a matter of perspective: "i've been awake for twenty-six hours straight, half of it because i've been sitting by the phone waiting for a call that never came. it's like my teenage love life played out on an intergalactic scale." and while it's a self-deprecating joke, it's probably not... entirely untrue about his dating life in general? we know why his relationship with kate was toxic (the implications of "things get real sid and nancy" speak volumes), and eiffel strikes me as the kind of person who prefers emotional intensity to casual indifference, even if it's terrible for everyone involved. i don't like to lean too much on things the writers have said - not least because gabriel urbina has been very clear that nothing that isn't in the show is strictly canon - but this is all speculation anyway, and the idea that eiffel was a "tv is my parent" kid who grew up unsupervised has always explained a lot about him, to me.

kate is his most significant ex because she's the mother of his daughter, obviously, but i'd be surprised if there were many other people he was that involved with for... a long enough period of time. like, don't get me wrong, i think eiffel has had plenty of hookups, one-or-two-dates, and even ex-girlfriends, but these aren't people who stay in his life; he comes on too strong for casual and doesn't have the day-to-day stability for someone who wants commitment. he's a lonely, stimulation-seeking person - he was a teenager who didn't have luck in love, and then a young adult who made a lot of bad choices (and didn't maintain any stable friendships), and then just... kinda a guy with a lot of baggage. a lot of things just kind of fizzle out because he assumes disinterest from people who don't meet him with that immediate intensity, or, otherwise, he says he's fine keeping things casual, but then he hooks up with someone once and he gets weird whenever he sees her from then on like, wow, crazy that you're here and i'm here... just two people who are both here... hanging out... like friends do. yup. and he tries to put his arm around her and she blocks his number.

[telluricdog]

kingisle whenever they need to coax older players back: HEY YOU PERSON WITH A WALLET!!! REMEMBER DRAGONSPYRE?!? REMEMBER HOW SAD THE LAST ACT MADE YOU FEEL? HERE'S SOMETHING REFERENCING DRAGONSPYRE!! ISNT THAT YOUR FAVORITE?!

[edge-oftheworld]

'shallow hearts for shallow minds that ache to be alive' the chokehold you have on me

[transmascutena]

thinking about how akio sees his younger self in utena and wondering if there's any fondness there. doesn't change the horror of what he does to her obviously but i do wonder

[coockie8]

It's so weird and funny to me when antis will be like "coping with taboo fiction is fine, but don't you understand you can't post it because people might get off to this!?!?"

Like what a stranger masturbates to is any of my business at all.

[ablondpanda]

I think a good reaction to have when someone explains their identity (gender, sexual, romantic, etc.) to you and it doesn't seem to make intuitive sense in your head is to remind yourself that they probably have very good reasons to feel the way they do about themselves and you haven't lived their life so you're probably missing some important context and experience that makes it make sense.

[ty-bayonet-betteridge]

3l!grian is frequently depicted as a tragic figure and sometimes i wonder if we even watched the same series

[jessmalia]

how many times do i have to relearn the lesson that being productive actually makes me happier before it actually sticks?

[angelsdean]

ruthlessly deleting old 2021/2022 posts (not by me) from my dean studies tag like *click* un-incorporating that from my beliefs system! also the way SO many posts have me like ok uh-huh good aaand then say one completely wrong thing that loses me. it's so many posts.

[some-teeth-in-a-trench-coat]

I need a Senshi to tell me how the heck to make food taste good if salt, grease, and frying it a lot are all allegedly killing my health

What the heck is left

[josies-not-suicidal-now]

I think I would totally identify as a demiboy and demigirl if I believed that cis people were somehow more legitimately their genders than I am mine, but I'm just far too skeptical of all gender to think that anyone is """Really""" a man or a woman, everyone is pretending actually, doing a bad job of being your gender is actually the only thing anyone ever manages, may chaos take the world <3