#i dont engage with discourse usually but i was trying to be NICE and HELP that person!!

[clay-pidgeon]

tried to gently introduce nuanced identities to someone on tiktok by pointing out that due to enbians existing, ppl who werent women could b lesbians, and they said that only afabs could b enbians so. thats what i get i guess

[toytulini]

Thank you for your tags on the baeddalism post. As someone who is aroace (formerly biace) and a nb transmasc I've literally watched every identity I have be dragged into discourse time and time again and it's always the exact same rhetoric to a nauseating degree. People are so terminally online that they constantly invent new nonexistent stereotypes of other queer identities to get mad at or just pick a queer identity to be the monster of the week, and it's excruciating to see it repeat the same way everytime.

I wanted to try to respond to this more eloquently after i had some caffeine, but if we wait for eloquence itll go unanswered for years. but lmao yea of course. Im also aroace and enby. I was here since like 2014, I suffered through reading all these same stupid arguments about a-specs and my tolerance for it is so fried. The queer infighting and gatekeeping bullshit is so rotting. I hope we learn one of these days. My disillusion that this keeps fucking happening is at least tempered by the fact that all the blogs who I followed for good takes on inclusionism and queer solidarity during the acecourse are also not tolerating this shit, and they are recognizing it as the same old bullshit its been the whole time.

[winterywitch]

*same person as before* I mean, it would be really nice if they were asking in good faith, but at this point I guess I don't really trust people who claim to be "cishet exclusionist" or "pro lgbt" or who say "the full acronym is lgbty=mx+c" because they're major dog whistles (like, of course "pro-lgbt" sounds really good but it's usually used in a context to exclude people who aren't l, g, b, or t) and I guess what I'm trying to say (in a v clumsy way, sorry) is that the notes on the post (cont)

esp. their reply, makes me really hesitant to begin replying because I'm really bad at putting things into words and it looks like they're going to jump at the chance if I say something awkward or poorly phrased. Sorry this took so much space to write, by the way.

first lemme say - dont worry about sending multiple asks!! youre fine, dw u o u

no yeah i definitely think we both agree that they werent asking in good faith, but judging by the URL and their about it really actually does sound like theyre trying, which is depressing given that their rhetoric still looks kinda godawful but idk i felt like maybe i could help somehow. im rly exhausted by people having the same misconceptions about the opposite side of the discourse [like, either side] so i try to correct misinformation where i can even if the person asking is only doing so to snap at people who respond to them genuinely and nicely, and to check off “asked stupid bad dumb asexuals what being asexual is and theyre stupid bad dumb and thats not my fault” on their “Maybe Im Not A Bad Person” checklist

AND YEAH LOL THE DOGWHISTLES ARE REALLY GETTING TO BE A LOT like ok does “cishet exclusionist” means that you dont think literal cishets are LGBT (a true fact) or does it mean that you dont think asexuals are LGBT and for some godawful reason you equate aces and cishets in your head (a horribad opinion)? does “pro-LGBT” mean pro-LGBT or does it mean that you think everyone who isnt L, G, B or T is HORRIBLE AWFUL INVADERS??

trust me there is N O pressure for you to reply or weigh in if you dont want to, if you cant, if you cant do so safely, etc., your boundaries are important and they matter, i was more inviting people to weigh in if they wanted to than expecting you guys to engage with a shitty person