#if the concept of labeling gender is a social construct then so is sexuality!

[icarusxxrising]

[officialspec]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

first off i hate this ask and i think youre a freak. in any other world i wouldve blocked you for this but unfortunately for both of us i actually like this type of philosophy. dont send this shit to anyone else though

i dont think its right to compare human sexuality to the same thing in animals, to get that out of the way. im sure until a certain point it comes from the same biological impulses, but human beings have way more complicated social structures and reasons for coupling that just do not exist in other animals. our social behaviours are what make us unique in the animal kingdom and that definitely extends to gender and sexuality. so theres that

people love to tout 'gender is a social construct' around like its a criticism in and of itself, which i think betrays a misunderstanding about social constructs in general. theyre the foundations we build language on to better understand each other, and affected by a whole host of cultural and historical factors. just because theyre subjective and complicated doesnt mean they arent real. in terms of the effect they have on peoples lives they may be the most real thing that exists

for example, 'kindness' is a social construct. the definition and ways it is enacted differ greatly across personal and cultural lines. but no one would ever suggest a world where kindness doesnt exist or loses meaning, because its an essential part of the way we interact with each other (in the same way i dont really see a world where gender entirely ceases to exist, mainly just one where people have more fun with it. im not a psychic though so who knows)

similarly, sexuality in humans is another social construct. i think the driving biological forces behind it are very real, but the labels people attach to those impulses are subjective attempts to express their inner world to the people around them if that makes sense. and those same biological impulses are ALSO subject to social ideas of gender, because those ideas are established at birth and reinforced over a persons entire lifetime

to use myself as an example, im a gay trans man. ive identified as other things in the past, because i was trying to pick apart feelings i had and express them to others in an attempt to find community. my identity might change as i get older and experience new things, or it might not. i identify as gay because im not attracted to the social concept of women, and someone i would otherwise be attracted to might lose all appeal after i find out they fall under that concept (this has happened before w transfems pre and post coming out lol)

of course, the real REAL answer to this is that trying to give queer identities rigid and objective definitions is a fools errand, and also lame as fuck. someone might identify as gay and be more attracted to general masculinity than men as a social category, maybe they fool around with a couple of butch women without considering themself any less gay. two otherwise identical people might be a butch lesbian and a gay trans man without either of those identities coming into conflict. they might even be the same person at different times of the week

the labels people choose to use are communication tools, not objective signifiers. if you dont understand them, they probably arent talking to you

social constructs are everything. we as humans have the unique ability to interpret our own messy desires and impulses into words that other people can use to form an idea of someone else in their mind. its how we build connections, and of course it isnt perfect because trying to squeeze someones entire personal history and the centuries of context that defined it into a handful of syllables is going to leave some room for error. but its all we have, yknow? so we keep trying. and i think thats much more human than any imposed objective 'truth' could ever be

tldr we live in a society dipshit. get with it

[pastadoughie]

Read over what was going on with anon asks and your posts, and tbh, if you are 16 and you are reaching this kind of critical thinking and actively trying to better yourself through meaningful debates and convos, you are doing god's fucking work from early. I couldn't even begin to form the kind of arguments you are articulating at your age in your posts, so fucking kudos.

I have a similar opinion of sexism being bad no matter the form it takes, patriarchy affects everyone because it imposes roles on everyone, not only women. Breaking those roles on all sides and genders should be the ultimate goal, not try to benefit from the system to become the oppressor.

In any case dude, good luck with the unavoidable influx of people who will misinterpret your posts. Also, your art is hella cool!

i think that alot of ppl just have a rlly hard time like, getting over the gut response to defend themselves when they recieve some kind of serious critisism, like, i think ppl understand on some level that sexism as a concept is stupid, but it can be hard to fully see all the nuances it takes and like, actually recognize it when its subtler

sexism is bad and when i point out that alot of you guys believe ideas that are like, really sexist then thats like, im assuming none of you are like "YEAA SEXISM RUELZZZ!!!! I HATE PEOPLE BASED ON THIER GENDOR" and u rlly rlly dont wanna be lumped into that group

its rlly normal to not wanna be mischaracterized and if you dont self identify as sexist then when someone points out sexist retoric it feels like an unfair and reductive veiw of u

and its like, you really really really need to work past that, im talking abt this stuff because i want ppl to change and be better and if you want that for yourself u have to like rlly chew on these kinds of things

i think what alot of people have issues with is like, relatability in artwork, like "of course im gonna like art with queer women in it more and find it more valueble if im a queer woman" but i think that this points to a really rigid and uphelpful veiw of gender

ive discussed before that, because the mind numbing ammount of biological differences people have theres no actual objective definition of sex or gender, its socially constructed and entirely arbitrary and subjective

i think that labels for sexuality and gender are useful shorthand in our current society though ideally we wouldnt need them, but you need to remember that these things arent rigid

butch lesbian is not a definable group, gay man is not a definable group, they are arbitrary words that mean something different for literally every different person

likewise acting like those meaningless labels somehow make some artwork more or less valueble just points to a bias against people with a certain label

like, the labels dont mean anything they shouldnt change your veiw of a work, if you resonate with a peice of work why does it matter what label is put on it? why does that affect your veiw on the peice?

and yes you are objectively going to relate to some experiences more then others, but i dont think relatability should effect how you value the work, infact id argue seeing perspectives different then your own is incredibly incredibly valueble and, if your disregarding (even subconciously) certain things because theyre made by men then that not only hurts men but it hurts you, it isolates you

maybe i didnt word that perfectly im not always the most articulate but like, i think most of the issues people are having with this are coming from me articulating things maybe not as intuatively as i could or from people refusing to properly engadge with what i have to say

idk, regarding the people accusing me of transmysogeny i just wanna say that like, I AM NOT ALLERGIC TO TALKING TO YOU ABT THIS!! i want to be better and i dont want to be mysogenistic! and if you do see concerning behavior in me i want to be told of it, you keeping these kinds of things to yourself or refusing to engadge with me when i actively am trying to be like, thourough and nuanced about things is just kinda, not productive

[nudelpudel]

Touchstarved Sexuality Headcanons

Disclaimer: I‘m bisexual myself, this is just for fun. These are MY Headcanons and aren’t canon in any way, if you have different Headcanons let me know!

Ais

- I don’t think Ais would really care much about labels. The concept of sexuality and gender is a human made social construct after all, so he doesn’t really see the point in adapting to such customs. He probably would identify under the mspec umbrella, but doesn’t actually care about the label itself and won’t specify it any further. He just doesn’t really care.

Vere:

- Same as Ais, doesn’t see the point of restricting himself because of some labels that humans came up with to categorize each other. Would definitely use labels to mess with people tho. He‘d say he’s bisexual one day and when someone else asks he refers to himself as pansexual to cause confusion. Probably evades the whole question by simply turning the conversation into some sort of flirt; "Why do you want to know? Curious to see if you could warm my bed? How utterly desperate~"

Kuras:

- Since Kuras is an angel, I don’t believe he would care about labels either. It‘s a very human construct caused by restrictive social norms that are used to people into boxes and limit their identities. He understands that it’s easier for people to identify themselves and to perhaps find other people who are alike and relatable, but hasn’t really given it a thought. He has other things to worry about. If asked, he would label himself as Pansexual, to make it easier for someone else to identify him and because he doesn’t have any preferences when it comes to a partner.

Mhin:

- I think it’s pretty clear that Mhin is either non-binary or agender, although I don’t think that they really care for the label in itself. As long as someone doesn’t refer to them as a woman or a man they don’t mind. Not sure if they’d be fine with gendered terms (e.g boyfriend/girlfriend). I know that some non-binary people don’t mind, but Mhin will absolutely fight you if you do. Non gendered terms like "partner" are more appreciated by them. Doesn’t mind the occasional slip up, but definitely gets pissed when they notice someone excessively use gendered terms for them. As for their sexuality, I think they might identify with the bisexual label with a small preference for men.

Leander:

- And finally for Leander, I think he‘d also refer to himself as a bisexual with fluctuating preferences. Practically just sleeps with whoever he wants and doesn’t really care, as long as they’re cute. Man does not beat the bisexuals sleeping around allegations 💀

[nerves-nebula]

Ur Leo is really just "Move I'm gay" but homophobic huh

yeah and he's never done anything wrong ever<3

sidenote: this makes me realize the turtles would have no idea about sexuality stuff and would therefore come to their own (insane) conclusions. so here's how that would go

raph would assume that, because they aren't human, sexuality doesn't apply to them. he simply doesn't consider it past that point (that's why it takes him so long to realize he is a gay ass homosexual)

leo would assume that sexuality DOES apply to them because they are BOYS and BOYS like GIRLS and he likes GIRLS (and sometimes other BOYS?? or just PRETTY PEOPLE in GENERAL?? fascinating stuff...) he tries not to trouble himself about specifics and just thinks he'll shoot his shot if he thinks someone is cute

Donnie has probably done the most actual research into sexuality among humans AND turtles (and was exposed to a lot of porn and sex via unsupervised internet usage) and he has come to the conclusion that they're probably closer to the human side than the turtle side... worst part is that he isn't sure though... also he discovered he's biologically female and doesn't tell anyone cause he's embarrassed and afraid he'll be forced to be a girl if splinter finds out (splinter doesn't care)

(despite all his research and "am i gay" tests, donnie has not landed on a single label, because discussions of gender as a social construct and the history of sexuality have convinced him that there is no precedent for where a turtle mutant who was raised as a boy lands on the spectrum. he made a 60 page google slide presentation on the subject matter and then deleted it in a fit of embarrassment when Leo saw him working on it)

Michelangelo is only vaguely aware of the concept of gender and doesn't see what that has to do with attraction so he is similarly just wildin out. possibly vaguely ace, but that might just be his short attention span, who can say!

[dykefaggotry]

What do you think lesbians are attracted to in women that lesbians can’t be attracted to in men?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives woman-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait women have that men can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

this is soooo not asked in good faith lol i know ur baiting babe but fine i'll go ahead and answer here <3

first of all idk where u got the idea that i think bi/pan is inborn orientation. ur mistaking me for a gender/sexuality essentialist rather than a bio essentialist and baby i am neither

second of all ur operating under the assumption that i am bi/pan and would fuck all genders and/or sexes. false! i do not care for dick i have never cared for dick i shall never care for dick and funnily enough i am capable of navigating my personal relationships on my own terms without imposing those terms on everyone else or making trans women feel like dogshit just for existing. if someone with a dick ever asked me out and i turned them down i wouldn't have to say "sorry it's because you have a yucky disgusting penis you fucking disgusting human" as so many of y'all love to do when confronted w trans humans, i would simply say "sorry, i'm not interested." and if they decided to keep pressing it or assault me that would be on them being a sexual predator, not them being transgender.

but okay. several things here. first off in the history of sexuality u have two views: essentialism and costructionism. innate vs socially created. in most cases of history, i take the constructionist point of view. with sexuality/gender it is way way more nuanced and complicated than that. i believe the Feelings we have about gender and sexuality are innate (and unique to every individual) but the labels we put on them change constantly over time. you can find this all throughout history and arguing that this isn't the case would be ahistorical and ridiculous. if you think the word "lesbian" existed 300 years ago and ppl you would deem lesbians would call themselves lesbians or conceptualize their sexualities in the same way as you do, you are dead wrong. they probably had very similar feelings, but they were framing it around their cultural frameworks they had at the time. as we are doing today.

the thing about social constructs is that they change. go back to the 1500s europe and it was widely believed that men and women shared one body type that was, essentially, sexless and the same, and that this body grew out of the body women have into the body men had. essentially, men were the more "progressed" body of humanity, but men and women shared the same sex. this... obviously was incorrect and changed. but so is our binary conception of "sex".

which brings me to ur point about animals.... heterosexuality and homosexuality as Acts certainly exist in animals but animals don't have social constructs to give them identities lmfao. and while these acts exist, they often do so in ways we as humans would consider "bisexual" although that's fucking ridiculous because they are animals. for example, often in the wild you will see "lesbian" lions that choose to mate with other female lions only and raise their young with them. wait- how's that work? their young? if animals with no social conceptions can somehow be "pure lesbians" would they not balk at the idea of procreating with a male lion? no, because that's not how it works in the animal kingdom. they procreate with the male lion and raise the young w the female lion and we slap the label "homosexual" on this or "bisexual" on it when neither is correct bc they're fucking lions, not human beings living in a society. similarly a female lion mating with a male lion is not a "heterosexual" lion, it's a fucking lion. we can't ask it "hey, miss lion, if you had the choice, would you solely prefer male lions? or do you like female lions as well? or are you just mating with this male lion for protection?" because it's a lion. ur comparison is outlandish, frankly. we are not animals in that way. the lion is not heterosexual or homosexual, it's a fucking lion that has sex.

anyway... not what you asked and i can hear u now going off abt how none of this answered ur question. ur right! before i could answer ur baiting question i had to clear up some bold assumptions you were making, define some terms and history, and debunk whatever bullshit you wanted to spew about animals for a second there

but to answer your question: sexuality and gender are unique to every single individual on this planet and structured around the society that individual lives in. sorry to tell you that, but it is. so, too, is the term lesbian. even within t//erf circles. "that's not true!" i can hear you shout, "every t//erf defines lesbian the same!" wrong! i have seen: lesbian means only liking people with vaginas but that can't be right because some trans women have vaginas, lesbian means only liking people with vaginas but that can't be right because some trans Men have vaginas and many of you would Not be attracted to them on the street bc many of them do pass as cis men indistinguishably, lesbian means only CHOOSING to date people with vaginas so this includes political lesbians who are attracted to men and bisexual or heterosexual but are politically lesbian, but wait no lesbian doesn't mean that bc i've also seen t//erfs saying any lesbian who makes a joke abt having a celebrity crush on a man is clearly a bisexual in denial sooooo that would preclude political lesbians too, oh okay so maybe lesbian means only liking people BORN with vaginas- oh shit nope that includes many intersex individuals you would not fuck and many trans men you would not fuck as they've gotten bottom surgery.... hm okay i've seen it mean you only like women BORN with a uterus/able to reproduce except oh whoops not all cis women can do that...... uh well it means anyone you can identify as a woman bc you're so good at clocking except- oh no you can't bc there are many CIS butches and CIS masculine women you all constantly mistake as trans women and harass or butches you straight up just think are men (hi! i am a butch read as a cis male in public!) and do not approach on that basis..... erm..... uh oh looks like your definitions suck too, sorry

so... what does that leave us with? if defining sexuality by sex is harder than it looks and defining it by gender is harder than it looks, what do we have?

well, like i said, it's an individual experience. most of the time, people are going to choose words and communities that resonate with them for whatever reason. for some people it might be bc they have grown up not liking penises in a world where they were expected to. for others it might mean growing up liking just Women in a world where they weren't expected to. for others it's liking non men. some others just like how "lesbian" feels on them and nothing else fits right. "lesbian" communicates something to people and it communicates a community that they feel a part of.

your conception of your sexuality and gender is not the same as anyone else on earth now or anyone in the past. and that is okay. communities and labels ARE human constructs. that doesn't mean they are unimportant and it doesn't mean humans are "innately" bi/pan (i sure as fuck am not lol i've never "innately" wanted to suck a dick and it's felt very "innately" bad when men have been interested in me). but what it does mean is that if you ask any lesbian what being lesbian means to them, you are going to get a different answer. even within your strict community where you think you have one definitive answer, you will have people that disagree with that.

there is no "indescribable trait" women have over men. but neither is there some concrete "yes THIS is the ultimate way to describe (human feeling)". human feelings are infamously hard to describe and label and we do our best with social constructs and human made terms, but we are always always going to fall short. you can do the same with race and wealth and ability and ethnicity and history and and and- something being a social construct doesn't make it not real. it just makes it complicated and messy and not so easily defined. and that is perfectly okay and if you are going to dwell on this planet with other human beings you're going to have to get used to that, sorry to say

so what is a lesbian? a lesbian is someone that tells you they're a lesbian and you say "okay" and don't ask for their life fucking story about why they call themselves a lesbian or how. it's none of your fucking business. whether they agree with you or they don't, it is way easier to just move on and keep defining yourself how YOU want and letting others define themselves how THEY want

[bluedalahorse]

Earlier today I alluded to the fact that Young Royals has some interesting stuff to say about heterosexuality. Let me elaborate.

One of the many intriguing moments in Young Royals season 2 (in my mind, anyway) is the phone call where Jan-Olof asks August a lot of questions and ends with the question “Are you heterosexual?” To which August replies that he is. It’s only ever been girls! (I think that’s how the line goes, anyway.)

What intrigues me about this is the way it puts the emphasis on heterosexuality as a label—or, to put it more colloquially, on the idea of being heterosexual as a “thing.” After all, the whole notion of being straight or hetero is a fairly recent one in human history. The word heterosexual hasn’t been around too long, first appearing in German in 1869 after being coined (along with the word homosexual) by Karl Maria Kertbeny. In the late 19th century, western culture saw a shift in how people understood sexuality, and people started describing sexual orientation as more of an identity thing (who you are) than a behavior thing (what you do.) If Wilhelm’s family has been on the throne at least as long as the IRL Swedish monarchs, then the current Swedish monarchy in Young Royals predates the ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The Swedish monarchy as an overall institution definitely predates heterosexuality as a concept. Social constructs, baby!

That said, Jan-Olof, the show’s keeper of tradition, still asks August if he’s straight. What he’s really asking, given the uncomfortable reproductive subtext of the conversation, is whether August is willing to produce a legitimate heir to keep the monarchy going. This is interesting because of the way it conflates heterosexual identity with reproduction. We know there are plenty of straight people who choose not to have kids and use various contraception methods to prevent pregnancies from happening or being carried to term. (Heck, August and Sara themselves have a whole conversation about condoms.) We also know that there are plenty of non-straight people who have biological kids. Ultimately, straightness doesn’t matter for that kind of thing! And yet, by including a question about heterosexuality in a series of questions that’s really about reproduction, wrapped in an even longer list of questions about fitness for the throne, this conversation is putting forward the notion that heterosexuality isn’t just about sex and romance. It’s also a political stance.

And that’s… that’s kind of fascinating. Usually it’s queer people who are said to be inherently “political.” Straightness, of course, is just as political. It’s just that no one calls it that. So I’m struck by the reversal of that dynamic in the show.

I’m also struck by how August’s heterosexuality is a matter of attraction, performance, and labeling, and each of these is addressed separately and a little bit differently by the writing. We know he has heterosexual attraction toward Sara (and possibly Felice, depending on how you read that relationship) based on the fact that he has ~those kinda feelings.~ But there’s also the public performance of heterosexuality, where we see August hitting on Felice in a very overt and aggressive way. In those moments, August’s performance of heterosexuality becomes an expression of power and privilege. This is further reinforced by some of the crude sexual jokes he makes about women. Even the softer stuff toward Sara puts him in a protector role that lines up with gender roles by the end of s2. If the performance of heterosexuality is an attempt to claim power, then what does claiming the label of heterosexual mean? I think perhaps we’re supposed to see it as August declaring his alleged right to power, within this particular social system where heterosexuality means something specific.

Labels can confer power on a person by giving them the power to define themself, but labels can also be limiting, in a way. August is, for the most part, straight in terms of his identity, behavior, and personal politics. He’s willing to claim the power and privilege that straightness gives him. However, there are times where his heterosexuality gets a bit fuzzy around the edges. That time where he’s (fakely) singing Simon’s praises and out of nowhere kisses him on the forehead comes to mind as kind of a weird moment. Like, where did that come from, August? The fact that August has watched the video of Wilhelm and Simon a few too many times also hasn’t escaped fandom’s notice. Finally, the fact that August labels himself as hetero in a scene where he’s lying through his teeth about other things, and when the palace is trying to fabricate a perfect princely persona for him, really shows how much of a social construct sexual orientation labels are. They describe something real, but they can’t describe all the nuances of it.

My point here is not that August is some sort of hidden bisexual representation sleeper agent—he really isn’t! (Like I said he is functionally straight, and also these moments above still involve him behaving in aggressive and dysfunctional ways.) Rather, I’m more interested in the way August ignores his own fuzziness-of-orientation (however minute) when claiming the strict heterosexuality label, and therefore cuts himself off from the possibility of empathy for Wilhelm and Simon, as well as enlisting himself in a system where he wouldn’t really thrive. Sure, there’s lots of other aspects of his personality that play a role in this as well. But I wanted to talk about this one today, so I did.

Anyway, binaries are harmful and divisive and reinforce weird power structures. Regardless of our orientations, we would all do better if we all embraced a degree of queerness in the world and in ourselves, don’t you think?

(Hey, are there other characters in the series where you want me to talk about their relationships to heterosexuality? Let me know with an ask or something; I’d be happy to ramble.)

[rollercoasterwords]

Hey so I just finished reading James’ interlude (it was amazing by the way!) and the u portrayed his aromanticism was so fascinating, def one of my portrayals. I saw u answering an anon and u mentioned (correct me if I’m wrong) that his aromanticism kinda comes from him being the chosen one, and how stuff like gender and sexuality are socially constructed. This is such an interesting concept to me coz I hear that language getting thrown around a lot but I never really understood what it meant.

It kinda reminded me of a convo I had with my transmasc friend. He said that if he had been born a boy he probably would have been transfem. At first I was pretty surprised, but then I thought abt it and realised that despite being a lesbian, if I had been born a boy I probably would have been gay. This revelation really stumped me coz, for context, Income from a conservative religious background, so I’ve always latched onto the idea that being gay is smth innate, or how God made me. But after that revelation,, I was like,,, maybe I can be straight if I try hard enough?? Liking girls is not smth innate within me?? Idk.

Sorry for the rambling lol but reading ur works always gets me thinking deeper abt these kind of topics. Probs has smth to do with u studying gender studies lol.

Anyways love ur work and have a good day <33

yeah i mean. i def think it's a good idea 4 everyone 2 spend time pondering & developing their own understanding of gender; ik mine has changed significantly over the course of my life & likely will continue 2 change as i grow older & learn more, etc.

i think one thing people tend 2 get stuck on is this idea that either ur born w ur identity (whether that's gender, sexuality, etc) baked in & have 2 discover it throughout ur life (bound up in the post-Enlightenment idea of a disembodied 'soul' or 'mind') OR it's all socially constructed, so it's completely made up/shaped by outside forces and we're all just playing pretend, etc. but that's really not what i mean when i say that i think of gender (& sexuality, etc) as socially constructed.

the best metaphor i have rn 4 explaining my own worldview is the idea of an accent. obviously, there is a material component to someone's accent: the shape of their mouth, their teeth--their ears, their hearing, etc. all of these physical & material factors influence how someone's accent might develop. but none of those factors really matter until placed within a social context--depending on where & how ur raised, ur accent will vary wildly, and it won't necessarily remain static throughout the course of your life. you & your family might have different accents; you might use a different accent to speak another language; your physical body might change in some way that affects your accent and the way u speak (stroke, hearing loss, etc). but there's no single, "true" accent inside of you waiting 2 be discovered and spoken. it's a socially constructed part of ur identity that develops throughout ur life, and can only be understood & have meaning attributed to it in a social context. and once u develop an accent, it feels as natural & as much a part of u as something like hair color, etc--it's not something u can just snap ur fingers & change, despite the fact that u weren't "born that way."

obviously, this is a metaphor, and there r many ways gender identity differs from accents--but i find it useful 4 helping illustrate in a tangible way what i'm talking abt when i say something is a "social construction." w james in wfrau specifically, what i was trying 2 say in that ask was not, again, that being "the chosen one" made him aromantic; rather, what i'm hoping 2 convey is that his experience growing up as "the chosen one" has fundamentally shaped his own understanding of his inability to experience/confusion surrounding romantic love (this is also why i avoid concretely labeling him as aromantic in the tags on the fic; it's not necessarily how he understands himself). he attributes this part of his identity to his understanding of himself as a "hero," i.e. someone who is not meant 2 prioritize any one person above The Cause/The Quest, bc his inability to grasp this concept of romantic love & reciprocate it does not align w normative understandings of love & so makes him feel ashamed & isolated & as though there's something "wrong" with him, & attributing this "broken" aspect of himself 2 the fact that he's meant 2 be a "hero" helps him reconcile w this piece of his identity that he otherwise doesn't understand how 2 qualify. again, i'm less concerned w whether there's some inherent "aromanticism" baked into him or whether he'd feel the same/identify the same way in different circumstances; what i'm interested in is looking at how this specific character has been shaped by these specific circumstances. hope that makes sense lol also ty glad ur enjoying the fic!

[locklylenerd77]

There is nothing more amusing to me than homophobes trying to pretend Neil made aziracrow gay in season 2. Like, where have you been for the last 6000 years? What have you been watching?

They've always been "gay". The kiss wasn't a change in or a development of anything. It wasn't even romantic in the slightest, it was a desperate attempt to convince Aziraphale to stay through a human demonstration of affection that Crowley hoped Aziraphale would understand because humans have specific ways of showing different types of love and attraction, whereas angels and demons don't. Aziraphale understands how humans show romantic and sexual attraction, so Crowley attempted to appeal to this knowledge and use it as a tool to explain how he defines their relationship.

But they aren't human, and relationships don't have to be physical, and they've always been ineffably in love. Nobody "made them gay". I find it so strange that people lack basic understanding of love and relationships outside of societal norms. Love is very specific to the people involved.

Also, the fact that neither of them are "gay" destroys the whole argument against making their relationship homosexual. They're angels, they existed before the concept of gender was even constructed. They don't have sexes, either, because they don't reproduce. They just appear as what we recognize as "male" on earth. So, not only are they themselves not gay, but they're also completely outside of human understandings of relationships and love. People trying to look at them through a human lens will ultimately fail to see anything except friendship and a "woke" kiss.

If you can't grasp the concept of love by itself, regardless of gender, sex, species, societal norms, and social cultures then not only can you fail to understand Good Omens, but you'll ultimately miss out on a lot of things in life. You'll melt into the crowd of people who define things as a "situationship" just because two people have a unique connection or feel no desire to label their love. You'll miss out on self-discovery and experiencing new things, opening yourself to meeting new people, and exploring your own identity. Such fixed mindsets only limit us and how we interact with others.

While labels can help us better understand things and feel more comfortable with our identities, people are also equally within their rights to reject them and simply get on with their lives. Aziraphel and Crowley are in love. They aren't gay or male or human.

If you go looking for a "woke" TV show with too many gays, you're going to find it. But Good omens is about love, and we as an audience enjoyed that love before it was made physically intimate. While some people wanted a kiss, others were fine with them as they were, and those differences in where we wanted the relationship to go represent the wonderfully diverse range of human perspectives on love, proving that we all view it slightly differently. If we open ourselves to relationships like Aziraphale and Crowley's and discussing them to try and understand (I feel we are beginning to understand them as characters and a couple as a fandom), we open ourselves to love.

That means friends, partners, soulmates, boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, family, pets, a love for the world around us, and more.

Love isn't "gay". Period.

[mod-kyoko]

lgbtqia+ headcanons

fandom: danganronpa

characters:

a/n: a couple years ago i made a post which was a list of characters i hc to be queer and looking back at it made me cringe hard because i was such a baby gay so i'm updating that and telling yall my hcs again but in a more in-character way for them!

♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧♤♧

trigger happy havoc

sakura ogami

she labels herself as queer because she doesn't have a desire to give herself a specific identity, it's not something she thinks about, she's just attracted to whoever she is attracted to

sakura ship i like: sakuraoi

makoto naegi

chin-deep in the closet, so he never labeled himself, though he is attracted to men and women

some makoto ships i like: komaegi (nagito x makoto), naegami, naegamigiri, naegiri

kiyotaka ishimaru

so gay. so so gay. bats not a single lash at women.

mondo was his gay awakening. though he kept it to himself for a very long time due to his family being not so supportive

taka ship i like: ishimondo!!!!

mondo owada

taka and mondo were each other's gay awakenings

though mondo is bisexual, w/ a preference for women

mondo ships i like: ishimondo, ikuwada (mondo x mukuro), owamiki (mondo x mikan)

aoi asahina

does not label her sexuality, though she is attracted to men and women. preference for women!!

hina ship i like: sakuraoi

toko fukawa

no labels, and she is attracted to men but i thoroughly believe her "crush" on togami was actually just an unhealthy hyperfixation and/or obsession

komaru was the first person that toko felt true feelings for

toko ship i like: tokomaru!!!

goodbye despair

hajime hinata

he is so bisexual it hurts

it took him a while to come to terms with it but i like to imagine nagito was his first bi awakening

some hajime ships i like: komahina, hinamiki, hinanami

peko pekoyama

peko is nonbinary and uses she/they pronouns, and her sexuality isn't labeled

was often called a tomboy growing up, and prefers a more androgynous style, but sometimes gets in touch with her girly side

peko ship i like: kuzupeko

fuyuhiko kuzuryu

doesn't put a label on his sexuality because he is so damn far in the closet, he doesn't even know he's in it

he is attracted to men and women though

some fuyuhiko ships i like: kuzupeko, kuzusoda

mahiru koizumi

she is omnisexual! attracted to all genders but with a preference for men

some mahiru ships i like: koizuryu, hiyoizumi

gundham tanaka

soooo asexual, he just doesn't get the appeal

attracted to women

100% unlabeled gender, it's a social construct anyway, he/it all the way

only gundham ship i like: sondam

hiyoko saionji

do i need to say it? lesbian

yeah

that's it

she keeps it to herself, due to internalized homophobia, but mahiru was definitely her lesbian awakening

only hiyoko ship i like: hiyoizumi

mikan tsumiki

biromantic w a pref for men

asexual due to her trauma, she has no interest in sexual relationships

mikan ships i like: hinamiki, miomiki, owamiki (mondo x mikan)

kazuichi soda

also sort of in the closet, attracted to men and women but definitely prefers women

hajime was his sexual awakening lmfao

kaz ship i like: kuzusoda

ibuki mioda

pansexual! she doesn't see gender

uses she/they/it and is neurodivergent, so she feels like her gender is very connected to music

ibuki ship i like: miomiki

killing harmony

shuichi saihara

okay so shuichi is attracted to all genders, but doesn't label himself because thinking about labels panics him (this is me projecting)

i live for trans shuichi actually

shu ship i like: saiouma

kokichi oma

bro is unlabeled and i feel like he likes to lie to people about his sexuality and then contradict himself to make them think they are going insane

oma ships i like: saiouma, oumeno

himiko yumeno

transfem (she/her)

is not out of the closet to anyone

himiko ship i like: oumeno, tenmiko...? (not sure if i like this one or not rlly)

keebo

very much struggles with the concept of gender identity, he wants to fit in by having a label, but doesn't know what he feels he is. whatever other people perceive him as, he decides he is

aroace (despite my personal hc that he is aroace i do enjoy the keebo x miu ship)

miu iruma

poor girl is painfully attracted to women and doesn't even know it

she knows she is attracted to men, but it will take her a while to realize her feelings for other girls

miu ship i like: keebo x miu

rantaro amami

bisexual af. preference for women

is currently questioning his gender

rantaro ship i like: akamami

[femboy-expert]

not saying you are one obviously because yeah, but a lot of the people genuinely pushing for gender abolition are TERFs as they want everyone to be just their “birth sex” (the reasons for them saying stuff like “a woman is an adult human female”)

the problem with that is, well, gender was always associated with birth sex. And all they are basically saying is no gender roles or hierarchy which… people who are trans accepting still don’t like gender roles or the patriarchy (I am nonbinary trans guy). Basically, they aren’t actually saying anything revolutionary, and want people to be reduced to their sex.

however, I feel like what went wrong in their conclusion is obvious. And that is when discussing the concept of birth sex.

As them saying being a woman is being an “adult human female” is, as said before, still upholding gender. As, again, gender has been attributed to sex already by the western world for a long time. And some people have only found out about our history existence a decade or two ago.

so, my point is… when we talk about gender abolition… is it really gender you want to abolish in it as a social construct? As maintaining this concept of sex reduction to be all to go by is still upholding already present ideas of sex and gender.

But it is this concept of sex reduction that is the actual answer here. In separating gender from sex, what liberation would mean would be to abolish the concept of sex.

Not that, obviously, sexual characteristics do not exist and there is not a tendency of common grouping of characteristics (though the groups are still not perfect and is not as binary and solid as people act like it is)

But eradicating the concept of sex, in this case, means there is no assignment given of said preconceived notion of what “male” or “female” is like. Eradicating it means to phase out the binary grouping of characteristics to blanket apply and label onto people at birth and on documentations. To no longer be assigned a sex when you are born, and in this not to be assigned a set of gender roles or expectations you are expected to comply to

So ultimately, the answer that lies more into the realm of possibility, what does not hurt trans people and that would actually make a revolutionary change in regards to gender and being freed of gender roles is to eliminate sex assignment and labeling and allow individual experiences of gender to be limitless

and so when one is born, they do not say “it’s a girl!” Nor “it’s a boy!” instead to simply go “it’s a baby!”

(in terms of medical questions… I mean that is between you and a doctor and not everyone else. but because of intersex people and just overall sex differences, it should really just be listed down as what sex characteristics are present)

sex abolition and gender liberation 😎 the only kind of sex we need is the act of getting down in whatever way makes cishets mad

Yeah that sounds epic just list down the characteristics

Also can we do stuff that makes the terfs mad 🥺

[greypetrel]

1, 9, 11 from the pride asks for any/all your blorbos (or, if you don't wanna decide, your main girls) c:

No no let's do them all! Thanks for asking! :D

Tis the prompt list (Please ask me others I have a wip wednesday at the ready but glaze won't process it and I'm grumpy)

1. What's your oc's gender identity? What's their relationship to their gender?

Alyra, Aisling, Garrett: CIS. Aisling doesn't care very much, but she tends not to be super-comfortable with overtly feminine presentation out of them being less practical and allowing her to move less. In the modern AU she'd be BUGGED by purses and will hate them to bits, must have both hands free. Garrett also will like to experiment with gender. I can picture him playing with corsets and why not, wearing skirts. "It's so comfy and fresh!". He really doesn't care.

Raina: Non-binary. She is comfortable in her body (beside periods, she'll get gladly rid of her uterus), will use she/her as pronouns... But will be much bugged by presenting herself as feminine or fully masculine. Long hair and dresses made her feel ill at ease with her own body and herself, but she likes makeup. She doesn't like the definitions of both genders and won't recognize herself into either fully.

Radha: Agender. Will say that gender is a social construct and are just identities people like to attribute themselves, and she isn't convinced in the concept as a whole. Won't choose any for herself, she's just "her". Uses she/her for commodity and habit.

9. Are there cultural or lore specific aspects to their identity? If applicable, does their species affect it?

Aisling: She internalised, in canon, a little bit too much her gender and sexuality, because of the social pressure in having children on her own, eventually, to pass her magic on. She never really questioned it because she felt like she had to perform and be feminine enough to be a mother one day. In all the other AUs she experimented much more with sexuality and gender expression. She had a brief butch phase in the DadWolf AU, it lasted little because she doesn't really like herself with too short hair.

11. Is your oc open about their identity? Are they more lowkey or more blunt about it? Why or why not?

Alyra: It's her own damn business, why would you like to know? She's open, but she will tell you only if she has a reason for it and question your motivations if you insist on asking her. Why would you need to know, just because? Being pan and poly is the first thing she says to people she's interested into, tho. She likes all the cards on the table. Raina: It was a problem growing up and caused bitterness between her and Leandra, so no, she won't be open about it as a first instinct. She doesn't act to make it a mistery, particularly when Merrill is around, but she won't go around in lesbian flags. Garrett: He's on top of the Pride cart, painted in glitters in the colours of the bisexual flag and throwing pink, purple and blue flowers at the crowd, singing Born This Way at the top of his lungs. Yes he's open look at his boyfriend isn't he the cutest. Aisling: Pretty open about it, doesn't find anything weird in it. Yeah sure she's bi, what about it? Will wear pins and go to the pride all dressed in blue purple and pink. Radha: She doesn't like to be perceived in general so no. She's just vibing, doesn't like labels. Will admit she's agender, but asexual? Only with HIGH approval and with a reason. Particularly she'd be closed about it with (older) elves she doesn't know, to avoid the "pass the magic gene on". She's happy in being an aunt and spoil her nephews, her notebook is filled with their drawings and that's it, thank you.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The New Pride | Andrew Doyle & Peter Boghossian

“Is the trans movement anti-gay?” In honor of Pride Month, Peter Boghossian begins this conversation with an investigation into the increasing rejection of trans ideology by the LGB (without the T) community. Peter’s guest is Andrew Doyle, acclaimed author, comedian, and host of Free Speech Nation on GB News. Here’s an important piece of information to better understand this conversation: Andrew is gay. Andrew explains the impact the trans movement has inflicted on gay people over the last several years, including the rise of abusive language toward gays he “hasn’t seen since the ‘80s." Lesbians are labelled “sexual racists” or “transphobes” if they reject trans women as partners. (The same is true for gay men rejecting trans men—that is, women—but the abuse is not as pervasive.) Peter and Andrew discuss the incoherence of gender ideology, the nature of sexual attraction, how predators manipulate gender self-ID, and the sterilization of gay youth. Also discussed: Bad woke art, sensitivity readers, primary education, censorship, standpoint epistemology, critical thinking, the long history of human fantasy and folly, and more. Andrew Doyle is a journalist, playwright, satirist, and comedian. He is the creator of Titania McGrath, “a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice and armed peaceful protest.” He is the host of Free Speech Nation and an unabashed lover of art and literature.

--

Peter Boghossian: Is the trans movement anti-gay?

Andrew Doyle: In its current manifestation, yes. So, not trans people are anti-gay, but the predominant cheerleaders of trans activism in its most extreme form are most definitely anti-gay. Because the movement at present -- and it wasn't always this way, only over the past five, six years -- is now completely underpinned by the notion of gender identity ideology.

The concept of gender identity is a difficult one because no one ever defines it, least of all the activists themselves. The best we can come to is a kind of feeling, a kind of sense, of who you are and a sense of an authentic self.

Helen Joyce in her book "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality," describes it as something akin to a sexed soul, which actually is very close to what certain trans activists have described it as. So, because it's not really pinned down definitionally, what we get, the most useful way of thinking about it is is that sense of self within, which is gendered. And whenever you try to get people to define it, they will say things like "I am a woman because I feel like a woman," which leads to a subsequent question, "but what is a woman," and then it's "whoever defines themselves as a woman," so we're in the realm of identity politics.

But gender identity ideology effectively is about ensuring that gender, as in the concepts of masculinity and femininity and stereotypical behaviors of what it means to be male and female, that those things are prioritized over biological sex.

And you even have, of course, activists again on the extreme side, who now pushed for the idea that not only is gender socially constructed, as in boys wear blue and girls wear pink - well there's nothing innate about that, is there - so there are certain modes of behavior that men and women have that are certainly socially constructed, there are others that are rooted in biology. But there's a great deal that is to do with social constructs.

But some activists will now say that even biological sex itself is a social construct. There's no really authentic way -- they've been saying that for many decades by the way, you've had voices in academia saying that for a long long time, even when I was at University, so there's nothing new about that; it's not true and it's never been true -- but it's now taken hold in society as though it is.

Peter: So, two things. One throwaway: one of the fake papers that Jim and I wrote, we titled it "Pre-epistemic Transgenderism." Since gender is a social construct and sex is a social construct -- this is so the argument goes -- no one ever truly knows their gender until after they've transitioned right, if we just remove the genitals from everybody, or if we just allow them to -- I can't remember what age it was -- you know at 12, they would transition, then they would know if that was a good thing or not. Yeah, pre-epistemic transgenderism.

[..]

So, what is anti-gay?

Andrew: Right, so that's the -- you asked whether it was anti-gay and I didn't really explain that.

So, the reason why it's anti-gay is because gay rights were secured through the recognition that there were always in any given society and culture a minority of individuals who are innately attracted to members of their own sex.

The debate about how that develops within individuals, that's a bigger debate and it's nothing to do with this. The fact is that there are a minority of people who are instinctively, innately attracted to members of their own sex. And that gay rights were secured by getting people to understand that.

Now you have groups like Stonewall, who's the UK's foremost LGBT charity, redefining the word homosexual to mean "same gender attracted."

That's not what it means. It's not homogendered, it's homosexual. It's people being attracted -- so a gay man isn't attracted to someone who identifies as a man they're attracted to men. Similarly, lesbians are attracted...

Peter: So, I just need to disambiguate. They're attracted to, and I'm trying to think about -- there's just no other way to say this without being vulgar. So, I'll put it on myself -- heterosexual is attracted to a natal woman or a person with a vagina.

Andrew: Right.

Peter: A gay person is attracted to a man that is in a natal, a biological -- someone born biologically male with a penis.

Andrew: Quite. But you see, extreme trans activists will twist that and say well, why are you obsessed with genitals, and they will then say that genital preferences are transphobic. But of course, you're not solely attracted to genitals. That is of course a part of the whole, part of everything that you are attracted to.

The idea that you're attracted to how someone perceives themselves doesn't make any sense whatsoever in terms of sexual attraction.

And it gets worse than that. Because Stonewall not only redefine the term, but then you have the CEO of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, comparing lesbians who don't want to date people with penises, comparing them to "sexual racists," saying that if you're writing off whole groups of people, a whole demographic out of your dating pool, you want to examine your prejudice and you want to examine where that bigotry came from.

But a lesbian writing off men from a dating pool isn't bigotry, it's homosexuality. So it's very, very serious when effectively the whole precept of of homosexual rights has been drawn away, taken away.

And you've even got trans activists now who talk about how lesbians who don't want to sleep with someone who identifies as a woman but has a penis, that they are suffering from some kind of trauma. That's the phrase they use. They say this is an example of trauma.

And of course that's -- I mean the WHO perceived homosexuality to be a mental disorder as late as 1990. That's what they used to say to gay people, you're suffering from some kind of trauma , you're suffering some from some kind of mental illness. You're a gay boy so all you need to do is find the right girl. Or vice versa. And that's exactly what trans activists are saying.

Now there was a website called Woke Homophobia which collected thousands and thousands and thousands of screenshots of trans activists attacking gay people. The website has since been deleted, which is a shame that no one archived it, because people don't believe this. But there are, it's not just one or two people on Twitter. There are thousands of these people using the kind of language that I haven't seen since the 80s about gay people, talking about faggots, about how AIDS was a good thing, gay people should die.

I did a tweet the other day which was, it was a monologue that I did on my show about the pride flag. [..] And I put out a thing about how pride no longer represents gay people.

I got attacked from both the right and the left, or at least people who identify as right and left, I should qualify. I got attacked by outright right-wing reactionary homophobes calling me a sodomite, you know, saying that it is degraded you know, degeneracy is the word they like to use they also use. Like to spell the word "return" with a V instead of a u to invoke in Roman numerals this idea of this Grand Roman tradition. Believe me, if they went back to Rome they might not like it. But anyway, so those idiots you know you just block and move on.

And then similarly, I was being attacked by gender ideologues who identify as being on the left. Their responses were slightly worse because I had two of them saying I should kill myself, calling me a cis gay, saying cis gays like this should kill themselves, and another one called me a faggot, and that was coming from someone who says they're left wing.

Now that -- I've never heard that kind of language, not since I was a small child. It's sort of been out of our society for about 15 years that kind of stuff. But now that kind of virulent homophobia is coming from trans activists.

Peter: So, why are they calling you, what, why are they, why?

Andrew: Because they fundamentally believe that to be gay is transphobic. They don't say it that way, but what they are saying is that if you are writing off -- if I as a male and writing off women who identify as men okay then I am transphobic.

[genderstarbucks]

i’m so sorry you’re basically being harassed by some anon! you don’t deserve it, i hope you’re doing alright

they’re just some troll who needs to get a life, people like them make the queer community a worse place, where others don’t feel safe. but the queer community was never about trying to fit in or trying to force yourself into labels you feel you don’t even relate to

these people could just turn their hatred to something useful, like bigots! :)

and these same people love to say stuff like “gender is a social construct, gender is infinite and you can be whatever you want!” but then change their mind with sexuality.

people like this just cannot fathom the fact that people who identify as the same labels as them will not always have the same experience.

for example, i’m a lesbian, and i am attracted to non-binary people, women and any other gender thats not a man, but my friend who is also a lesbian may have a different experience than me.

and going back on the topic of social constructs, the concept of an identity being invalid or valid is also one. i believe the concept of validity is just an excuse to opress other members of the queer community

its not helping or protecting anyone, its hurting people. people who identify as something that you think is “invalid” are not evil monsters or secret fetishists, they’re actually individuals with their own experiences. and those experiences are beautiful!

people often mistake their discomfort for different identities with harm, which are not the same! actual harm being done would be homophobic, transphobia or any kind of queerphobia. not someone identifying as a bi-lesbian.

i also feel that people need to stop assuming so much. listen to others, do not make assumptions right off the bat.

sorry, this kind of spiraled into a rant and its quite long. 😭 i just have a lot to say right now. -@sleepycorvidzz

Thank you! I'm doing alr, I don't let shit like that affect me

And dwbi being a rant, people like that piss me off too cuz like, why do you care so much??

I find it rlly funny how pro xeno exclus are like "gender is infinite, you can be whatever you want!" but expect orientation to be strict, rigid labels that aren't fluid or flexible at all

"Bi lesbians and lesboys are ruining the community!" Actually no we're not, you are hun /nay

Some bisexuals are 50/50 and are only attracted to boys and girls and that's completely fine, but that's not my experience

And some gays are exclusively attracted to men, as am I

We all have different gender and orientation experiences, just bc some ppl use the same label doesn't mean that they have the same experiences

[elliegoose]

Possibly a dumb question, but like how can a person be sure they're ace? I've considered it before but decided it was due to some combination of fear of intimacy/trauma/dysphoria. But as I work on all that and the interest doesn't really strike, it seems like i'm kinda on that spectrum.

So, fundamentally there are as many definitions of asexuality as there are asexuals. Most introductory definitions of the spectrum describe it as "experiencing little to no sexual attraction", but the definition that I personally think is more descriptive of the broad variety of people on this spectrum is "sexual feelings and behaviors that challenge allosexual expectations and social constructs surrounding sexual desire and attraction".

For example, a lot of asexuals, when the bodily feelings of sexual attraction are described to them--that warmth, the rush, the flushed feeling and light-headedness when you see someone attractive--find that they do not experience those sensations. However, I personally experience those bodily feelings quite strongly, but it just never leads to a desire for sex in me. I don't understand the appeal sex, neither conceptually nor in practice. It just isn't hot to me. Instead, my attraction to me just makes me want to like... cuddle with a person or do weird kink stuff with them. I am in a lot of ways quite "sexual", except my sexuality doesn't include anything that is conventionally considered partnered sex or really much at all that involves genitals in the first place. And so I identify as ace because I think it resonates with my lack of desire for sex, even if I don't really fit the "little to no erotic/sexual attraction" label (unless you define "sexual" as purely being about things which are widely agreed to be partnered sex).

Also, I totally get the trauma and dysphoria aspect as well! I had no idea how to actually participate in my kink interests and was suppressing most of them entirely until I started HRT, and solving a lot of my genital dysphoria with an orchiectomy has helped me participate more enthusiastically, when before that dysphoria would sometimes prevent me from doing things that I otherwise really wanted to do.

Anyway, this is all to say that asexuality is complicated, and part of the your journey to figure out whether or not you want to use the label is likely going to involve mentally and emotionally deconstructing the concept of sexual attraction. Because in reality, everything that we categorize as "sexual attraction" is a product of culture or at least has very prominent elements attached to it which are culturally dependent. It's all fake. Your sexual orientation exists as a dialectic between your irrational, irreducible internal experience of desire and the categories, definitions, and norms that society creates for everything surrounding gender, sex, kink, romance, and intimacy. These are a lot of words and big concepts, but ultimately what I'm trying to say is a lot of this stuff just doesn't matter. Sexuality is fun to think about, but it's not worth overthinking. What's most important is that you vibe with whatever labels you use. They just gotta make you feel good. If they don't, you can toss em in the trash.

[themainspoon]

I don’t talk about uni all that much (sociology major anthropology minor), but I do want to share a question they have raised for us in my unit on gender and sexuality (feminist and queer theory) which could very possibly turn tomorrows tutorial (main focus is on the concept of ‘family’) into the fucking amateur queer theorist thunderdome:

Like, there could be a screaming match over this shit, it’s so based of them to dump a question of this magnitude on us and simply leave it up to each individual to work it out for themselves (I’m being genuine).

I’m not going to give my answer to this because there could easily be arguments in the notes even without my input. But I will say that we often like to imagine that there are “the queers” and “the cishets”, and that these two groups are seperate and different. We imagine a hard absolute barrier, but when you start to focus your gaze on that barrier you quickly begin to realise that it’s less of a line and more of a blur, filled with porous sexual subjectivities, sexual flexibility, and many tests of how far your understanding of the fact that labels are descriptive and not prescriptive truly goes.

IT’S ALL SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION! WHEN YOU PULL ON THE THREADS OF THE FABRIC OF SUBJECTIVE REALITY THE REAL FUN BEGINS!!!

It’s wildly entertaining stuff, to me at least.