#inclusional feminism

[runawaysiren940]

I was watching some of your YouTube videos and I was curious how you would define yourself politically?

Politically homeless. I don't have much faith in politicians or the government in actually listening to or representing the people, so in many ways, I feel like it's a moot point.

I do agree with the need for socialist policies for a lot of things. I technically could be considered liberal, except that I think often liberalism goes too post-modernist, and ignores reality for the sake of inclusionism; conservatism directly opposes radical feminism, but many republicans have been holding the line for women's spaces (but often are also misogynistic or homophobic).

I guess the best term would be moderate. I seek realistic solutions and middle ground where able, but my priority is women's rights, and safety. Often both republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals shift between supporting and going against that.

[giobicop-blog]

CommunicationLab: programma radio cusano

ecco i link ai podcast realizzati nel Comunication Lab di Radio Cusano all’interno del programma Società Anno Zero di Livia Ventimiglia e Bagheera di Luca Bussoletti

1 puntata: vivere senza auto la mia esperienza

2 puntata: l’esame di maturità 2022 con la prof.ssa Vera Gheno

3 puntata: le 21 madri costituenti con la giornalista Caterina Caparello

4 puntata: perchè ci chiamano le ragazze? riflessioni sul linguaggio inclusivo

5 puntata: Il futuro del lavoro è femmina? riflessioni sulle competenze del futuro con Silvia Zanella

6 puntata: la compresenza delle diverse generazioni in azienda confronto con Livia Ventimiglia

7 puntata: essere padri oggi con Mirko Cafaro

8 puntata: la settimana della mobilità sostenibile

9 puntata: classismo digitale con Martina Miccichè (aka @alwaysithaka)

10 puntata: linguaggio inclusivo e eliminazione di stereotipi con Flavia Brevi (@hellanetwork)

11 puntata: color carne con Giuditta Rossi (@boldstories)

12 puntata: tornare al Sud con Cristiano Carriero (@lacontent)

13 puntata: le sartorie sociali con Barbara Chiodi 14 puntata: Giornata internazionale per l’eliminazione della violenza contro le donne con le cuoche combattenti  15 puntata: il consenso conversazione tra Livia Ventimiglia e Giovanna Coppini

16 puntata: stop afrofobia con Uchenna Uzoije

17 puntata :data feminism con Donata Columbro

Bagheera: Pierluca Mariti (aka @piuttostoche) analisi di un influencer 

#communicationlab #radiocusanocampus #liviaventimiglia #lucabussoletti #unicusano #giovannacoppini #societaannozero #bagheera #inclusione #futuro #leadership #veragheno #caterinacapparello #silviazanella #mirkocafaro #martinamicciche #flaviabrevi #giudittarossi #cristianocarriero #barbarachiodi #sartoriesociali

[theladykit]

hi there! i apologize if this is weird or strange of me, but i saw you reblogging my post about lesbian men (im a mod on that blog, it wasnt a post from this blog), and thought your blog looked interesting so i clicked on it- and i'm really interested in hearing your perspective as an older queer person, what it used to be like in queer communities and if lesbian men used to be commonly accepted in queer spaces? of course i do not expect you to be an expert, i just always look to the voices and testimonies of older queer people about this stuff because listening to exclusionists can be so frustrating, and y'all are much more educated and understanding of the queer community, and i figured i'd ask for your perspective on inclusionism and exclusionism from a more experienced queer perspective? of course if you do not want to answer you don't have to, i just figured i'd reach out as i'm interested to know!

I am so sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this sooner. Life intervened in a pretty huge way, and I swear Tumblr ate this ask for awhile. This is going to be a long one, because I want to answer your question as completely as I possbly can, but I am not a succinct writer by any means.

I don't mind answering questions at all, and I don't think it's weird or strange to ask a question if you're unsure of something or want clarification or additional knowledge. However. I always put out the disclaimer that I came to queerness, at least out queerness, pretty recently, so even though I'm older, and old enough to remember at least some prominent US queer history as it happened, I was not as directly connected to it as others. That, in addition to it absolutely not being safe to come out in the area where I lived, and as the result there effectively being no queer community where I lived, I'm not as up-to-date as I would like to be. I also did the classic "overinvested ally doesn't realise" thing for a really, really long time.

That said, I'm still happy to answer as much as I can.

Exclusionism, in one way or another, has always existed, as I'm sure you're aware. Queer whites, on the whole, often were and are outrightly hostile and openly racist to all kinds of queer people of colour, fat queers, and plenty of intersections between those and other identities and circumstances. There's definitely been sexist behaviour towards others from both cis-binary genders. What I will say is that queer spaces, in general, have always been more welcoming in terms of actual identities than exclusionists want anyone to believe, and for far longer.

The word queer, since the time I first learnt it (from queer sources), has never, ever meant a specific set of identities. I do not remember the exact terms of how it was explained, but it was a word for people who did not have a word, or didn't want to use specifics. Didn't matter why they didn't have a word, just that they didn't. Everybody was welcome under the definition of queer if they thought they were queer, and while not everyone would have agreed with that as a concept at the time, it was absolutely crucial to my understanding of this community.

For people who defined queer that way, it is very possible that being a male lesbian wouldn't have been seen as a problem, and I have the feeling those who would have taken issue would have been exclusionists anyway, but that may not always have been true. It is sometimes hard to separate the damage lesbian separatism has done to the lesbian and sapphic communities, from what they looked like in general before that, especially to our understanding of feminism and womanhood. Plenty of it predates me, so I don't have as much first-hand context specifically related to male lesbianism as I would need to answer this question more fully. I wish I had more complete experiences, or at least knowledge, to give you.

Among those who truly supported the idea of queerness as I described it, being a male lesbian would have been just as valid as any other identity. How commonly accepted that was, I can't say without stepping outside the scope of my own experience. What I know is that there were a not-insignificant number of people who did embrace that degree of oppenness and acceptance of all queer identities as valid. Hell, I have memories of reading articles defining queerness in mainstream, widely-read teen magazines in the mid-'90s which matched my definition almost exactly.

I do feel like there was a much clearer idea that queerness does not rest on the language someone uses to identify themselves. Queerness, as I learnt it, was always about radical inclusivity. It was always about the community as a whole, no matter what the actual identity was. Everyone was welcome, and we did not have to personally understand to accept, and there was definitely--as I lived it, at least--a feeling that you were expected to accept others as they were, because our community was all we had.

What the queer community of the time understood in a very visceral way was that our lives were at stake; most of us alive in that period knew someone who'd died of AIDS, or had cared for someone, or had some connection to it. Those who had the ability to afford exclusionism had some measure of insulation from that reality. That insulation has extended to more groups in the present, but there is a concerted effort now to strip it away, and it isn't just cishets who are leading the charge.

It is not an accident that the people least accepting of the word queer are the people who tend to hold the most exclusionary beliefs, no matter where they identify in the acronym. They're also the ones most likely to have survived the reactionary-led purge of the '70s, '80s, and early '90s. Their voices were always overrepresented, and that is now leaking into more mainstream acronym and queer spaces in a way that is dangerous to the queer community as a whole.

Take heart, though: it wasn't always like that, and we can make it that way again.

[punkass-diogenes]

Just finished reading "Taxonomy for Human Beings" by Londa Schiebinger. Great insight into why the whole "define woman" conversation is so precarious, given that many of the commonly accepted criteria for dictating what a “woman” is are inextricably tied up in oppressive hierarchies of both sex and race. (Here's a deep fried PDF if anyone's interested.) The enforcement of gendered norms is not simply derived from a basis of biological sex or sexual difference; it is derived from a totally bullshit pseudoscience of sex and of race, as dictated and delineated by white men continually seeking to justify their own positions at the top of the “chain of being.” One that deliberately constructed our bodies as frail (and therefore unfit for life outside the home) and as “closer to nature” (and therefore closer to the beasts) and “complementary but fundamentally different” from males (and therefore requiring the creation of separate spheres).

The longer I watch this wretched debate over “wHaT’s A wOmAn” play out, the more I see women, in the name of opposing trans rights and “preserving” the category of “woman” (key question: do we really want to do that?), invoking the same loaded bioessentialist rhetoric that was designed to oppress us, and the more I am convinced that the dissolution of hard boundaries designating groups of people is absolutely necessary for liberation. There’s a reason why Republican asses were so chapped by Ketanji Brown Jackson’s refusal to play the game of defining “woman,” and it’s not because they are such feminists. The radical feminist attempt to define women as a single “sex class” is simply not radical enough to undo the damage done by this artificial classification. It doesn’t go to the root of patriarchy. It fully stops short of the root by insistently defining women along delineations that were constructed by and for men as a framework for imposing gendered norms.

The main difference between inclusionist and exclusionist liberation movements is that exclusionists, while acknowleding the existence of gray areas, seek to minimize them and dismiss them as anomalies. To throw spackle over the cracks and smooth them over so they blend in and can be ignored. Meanwhile, the entire philosophy of inclusionism is to jam a wedge into those cracks and make them bigger and bigger, pulling more people into the gray areas, until they can no longer be ignored and the entire taxonomic system that enables social hierarchies collapses.

The treatment of bisexual people since forever both inside and outside of the LGBT community is a perfect example of this. As long as rigid taxonomies are enforced, bisexual people's existence will always be contested. Bisexuality is inherently gray. It lives in the gray area between the taxonomic categories of heterosexual and homosexual, and therefore threatens both of them. "Battleaxe bisexuals" are digging their own graves by trying to strictly classify something that inherently defies classification.

We also see this in the fight between LGB and “queer.” People claim to hate “queer” because it is “a slur,” but usually, after talking to them, it becomes apparent that the real reason they dislike it is because it’s too inclusive. Increasingly granular and sometimes seemingly contradictory labels like “bisexual lesbian” and “demisexual” make it increasingly difficult to govern who is and is not “queer.” Furthermore, the word “queer” denotes a rejection of assimilationism. By proudly labeling oneself “queer,” one announces oneself as abnormal and simultaneously denounces the entire idea that normal is a desirable thing to be. This is anathema to the efforts of LGB people who want to see LGB orientations reframed as “normal” and do not consider the entire concept of “normality” to be inherently oppressive, as those who identify as “queer” often do. It all comes back to the master’s tools and the master’s house.

I do realize how this can pose problems in legal contexts where such categorizations are necessary for delineating protected classes and other such matters. That is a real challenge to be navigated, and it is worth talking about how much of a fight for liberation actually takes place in the legal sphere versus in the ungoverned social sphere, which is subsequently upheld by the legal. But the dissolution of these categories in an ontological context is still, in my opinion, a desirable thing.

[fuzzy-feminist]

On Intersectionality

I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own. And I am not free as long as one person of Color remains chained. Nor is anyone of you.

– Audre Lorde

This is a crash course on intersectionality and why we believe in it because there is a lot of generalization among feminist groups that somehow all women are affected the same way by patriarchy. That is not true. It is a generally accepted fact that women are worse off than men. But are all women, all the time? Many moc have it harder than white women, but that does not negate women's issues. Different issues and oppressive institutions can intersect. That is where intersectionality comes in. Without intersectionality, feminism is white and one dimensional.

Tumblr feminism is focused on America, but the experiences of American white women under patriarchy are not universal. Black women have been constantly protesting against their feminity being taken away, which collides with white women having feminity being forced on them.

Asian women are seen as exotic and sexualized. Asian men are dehumanized and infantilized too, often perpetuated by white people trying to appropriate Asian culture. Asians are oppressed against on grounds of race, but men and women face different issues, because race and gender intersect.

Muslim women are often spoken over with regards to their own issues. Many women from minority or marginalized communities are sexualized, ignored and silenced. Disabled or ailing women face many discrimination. They share these issues with their own communities, but they also face specific difficulties as women.

This is no oppression Olympics. It is a popular misogynist rhetoric used against women that [x group of women] have it worse. However, someone else having it worse does not mean one's issues are invalid. Yet one woman from one group cannot explicitly decide how every woman on Earth feels and how patriarchy affects them.

All of the above includes trans people, whom certain feminists love to exclude. Trans people face oppression based on their gender, their agab and their identity. Genders outside the binary exist, and such should be acknowledged when speaking about oppression based on gender.

Exclusionist rhetoric in queer groups often goes along the lines of "this marginalized sexuality existing lumps us with our oppressors". This logic is inherently faulty because different types of oppression have always intersected and there is no fighting any oppressive institution without acknowledging that. It's not all men vs all women. It's not all white people vs all poc. It's not all abled people vs all disabled people. It's oppressed people vs the institutions that oppress them, be it one or many.

[wandererslullabi]

One of the biggest reasons I tend to ere on the side of inclusion is because it’s like letting the door to aid and support remain unlocked. It gives a wide variety of people the option of whether to enter or not. Even if someone decides not to, they still have that option if they ever need it. It gives way to freedom and diversity and creates an open and accepting community that welcomes before it judges.

Whereas with exclusion, the door is closed and people are only let in after they’ve been critiqued and examined to make sure they fit the right mold and check all the boxes. Yes, it may be a more tightly knit community who’re more closely aligned with each other, and it may mean fewer hateful, manipulative people slip in, but that’s because it’s a smaller, less diverse group of people who’ve been trained to judge and be judged from the very start.

I would rather let a thousand “fakers” slip in the cracks than turn away someone who could’ve been saved simply by being being welcomed, accepted, and supported.

[alioc]

Why don’t more people read Tamora Piece books

[official-cisphobe]

it's so refreshing to see more experienced queer people support mspec lesbians because i'm so tired of all this newfangled discourse and these like 18 year old lesbians acting like they know jackshit about what they're talking about. seeing queer people with actual experience with this shit be fully supportive of discoursed identities is just like. really validating because i vocally stand up for inclusionism and it's really affirming to see that i'm not fighting a losing battle, that inclusionism IS an important battle and people with more experience DO support it. since i myself am only 17, sometimes as soon as i see someone being exclusionist, i start to doubt whether i'm right to be a vocal inclusionist because i'm not sure if i am right because i'm still so young. but more experienced queer people like you being inclusionist really are role models for younger generations of queer people to continue inclusionism, so thank you for that!

["to clarify on my last ask- i know you're 18 yourself, but you still have experience and i value that."]

hi I have no idea when you sent this but I only saw it now!!

the history of lesbianism is such an undertalked about topic. I myself am by no means an expert either but I have my fair share of experience with talking to older members of the lesbian community and reading queer literature and studying the history.

an important thing to remember is that there was absolutely little to no differentiation between being a lesbian and being mspec before the rise of lesbian separatism and the transphobic brand of radical feminism. it is 100% the doing of terfs that lesbian ever started meaning "women only attracted to women"

the notion that lgbtq identities are finite and bound by this invisible rulebook is entirely a modern idea, the queer community back in the day was extremely fluid because it focused on making yourself feel good and valid and seen, and it was about finding community in a very large and diverse group of people instead of dividing into sections.

the lines between gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer were blurred and that's what made it great! there was no pressure to identify any specific way and you were free to experiment with being as wild as you wanted.

the moment you let go of the need to abide by rules that came out of nowhere, is the moment you start feeling actual freedom and comfort in your identity.

the lgbtq is a space to be free, to be comfortable, and to have fun. THAT is what ballroom culture was about.

[thefeistydragon]

Does anyone have any good lesbian blogs to recommend that are inclusionist and intersectional?

(Especially ones that include the lesbian flag in their icon)?

Thanks to Tumblr, I'm starting to get to the point that seeing the lesbian flag used has me assuming that the OP is an unpleasant and generally bigoted person. (TERF, REG, generally anything under the radfem or exclusionist umbrellas).

It's gotten to the point that I'm starting to have a visceral reaction to the sight of the lesbian flag, and I do not want to let those people ruin such a lovely thing.

I want to head off this association with some positive exposure, and I know there are a lot of great lesbians out there. I'm nervous about wading through blogs to find good ones, however, because I don't want to reinforce the association I have (otherwise I wouldn't be asking this).

I'm mostly looking for blogs that are focused on activism, lgbtq+ positivity, feminism (the actual kind, not sexism or cissexism parading as it), or maybe fandom blogs.

If a person who happens to be one of the people I'm trying to avoid responds, note that I will block you. Don't waste either of our time.

If I don't get a response I'll try and find a few myself and compile a recommendation list so that other people don't have to go through disgusting content to find good content.

[spooky-qrow]

I... don't understand terfs at all I am not joking I literally do not get it

-force labels onto trans people and tell them what their sexualities 'really are' which is usually kinda homophobic as well as transphobic

-seem to think women are incapable of abuse or sexual assault?? the chances of a woman being an abuser or offender is just the same as a man, it's just that men get reported and women don't bc when men report THEY ARE INCORRECTLY BLAMED AS THE ABUSER (and other reasons ofc, some of which that apply to both genders)

-there are little to no resources in most places for male abusees or victims of sexual assault. no shelters, no hotlines, nothing. where I am there were and are no hotlines or shelters for male victims

-chromosomes and other genetical factors are more complex than just male and female. there are more combinations than just XX and XY. also its not like anyone can see your dna or chromosomes anyway? it's pretty much irrelevant

-by treating trans women as abusers and offenders you are reinforcing stereotypes that I thought you were meant to be breaking down

-feminism is about equality, not female supremacy, which none of them seem to understand

-there is plenty of science behind being trans. more than plenty, actually.

-whilst trans men are not the actual victims of terfs as a whole, treating them as confused lesbians or straight girls is infantilising and also tends to be done in a way that reinforces stereotypes that are harmful against women

-literally all it takes to educate yourself is something as easy as looking up the NHS site for gender dysphoria which is one of the most reliable sources I've seen

-talk to trans people without throwing accusations, especially trans women. terfs are so uneducated on trans women especially that it's amazing they even feel the right to attack them. just have a damn discussion for once with a willing participant in which you are polite

-bringing up or making fun of people's genitals is not only borderline sexual harassment, but it's disgusting

-bringing up or making fun of minors' genitals is borderline illegal if not completely illegal and also disgusting

-actually, attacking minors altogether which I've seen terfs do is horrifying. harassing children is fucking vile behaviour especially when it involves their fucking genitals

-a lot of what terfs say sounds like an entryway or attempt at conversion. trans people are also subject to conversion therapy, terfs!

-terfs reinforce the oppression trans people face on a day to day basis

-feminists themselves have said transphobic has no place in feminism

-believe it or not, you are bullying people. bullying is one of the leading factors behind suicide and self harm, which trans people often suffer with anyway for various reasons

-some trans people don't hate their bodies

-gender affirmation surgery is actually classed as reconstructive

-a lot of cis people agree with trans folk and respect their existence. in fact, a majority of people do. we're not just some weird phenomenon

-just because one trans person does a bad thing doesn't mean every trans person supports that thing. just because a few trans people do bad things doesn't mean every trans person does or supports that thing

-some gay people don't know about their sexuality until they experiment. not every gay person immediately knows their sexuality. the experience of discovering your sexuality is different for everyone. saying there's only one gay or a lesbian experience is, congrats, homophobic

this literally isn't even everything about terfs that's fuckin insane, so feel free to add on to this list lmao

this post is about terfs. do not derail, and do not debate transmed/tucute things on this post. do not debate exclusionism or inclusionism here. this is about terfs, gay folk, lesbian folk, trans women, and trans men exclusively.

[slipscout]

people kept saying that jello joked about trans people being hermaphrodite 5 years ago, is any of that true? i saw someone in the notes talking about it on the original post. i thought you would probably know

Before we begin my computer has witnessed a power outage AND an error code within 5 minutes and WOW have I never felt the need to scream more in my life. 

Let me know if anything needs to be clarified/expanded on or is incorrect and needs to be fixed!

Onto the discourse!

The Welcome to Tumblr video was created January 2014, posted onto Jello’s official yt channel. I suggest you watch it before proceeding. Long post ahead!

Alright! The quote in question, our main suspect!

2:32-2:52

Oh, you’re back! Ah, I see you’ve added something to your facade! (Squeaky toy SFX showcasing a green sticky note with a Y, labelled ‘Vagina’ and underneath, ‘I am a hermaphrodite’). A vagina on a man is a good start, but you can’t go around calling yourself a ‘hermaphrodite’. That’s racist. What you need is a politically correct name for yourself that you can use to yell at people with. You’re not a ‘hermaphrodite’, you’re vagin-abled.

Lets bounce right into it.

A hermaphrodite is where an animal has both sex characteristics. Notably, the clownfish is a sequential hermaphrodite that changes from male to female when needed. Hermaphrodite is a pejorative, outdated term to describe intersex folks.

Intersex is where humans have both sex characteristics, internally and externally. Some people go through their lives never knowing they’re intersex. It’s full of genetics and all that jazz, and I’m not nearly qualified to talk about this, so I suggest you head over to the ISNA to learn more about it.

Anyway, the video is a satirical piece that is supposed to make fun of ‘SJW’s and the radical feminism/inclusionism of passive-aggressive folks on 2014 tumblr. I wasn’t around for that, so I can only witness this post-happening.

SO! Trans people and intersex. There’s a lot of differences here, and better definitions and questions on ISNA. I’ll try to keep it simple:

Trans folks are, for the most part(I’ll get to that in a moment), physically aligned with their assigned gender at birth. However, they experience doubt and dysphoria over that. Its a mind vs body type.

Intersex folks are not aligned with their assigned gender at birth!

Both can use surgery/testosterone/estrogen to align themselves as they please, which is why some intersex folks consider themselves trans! There’s definitely a line that defines the two, but for the most part, they’re separate identities that cross paths every now and then.

Onto the next part.

The ‘vagina on a man’ part can absolutely be interpreted as transphobic, if its taken slightly out of context. The video itself is the context, and focusing on that part alone and not the video as a whole counts it towards being transphobic. 

Some parts of the video just didn’t age well, but here’s the thing: it’s supposed to be satire, comedic, and not meant to be taken seriously.

So, answering your question: was jello making fun of trans people and saying they’re hermaphrodites/not true guys/gals/nb, and is any of that true?

Answer? Yes-ish? In a sense. He was making fun of the 2014 shitshow of tumblr, the pitchforks and mobs if you didn’t show enough respect. The radical political correctness and SJWs was what he was aiming at. He wasn’t basing the entire video on digging at and hurting any selective group, he was showing how random people on the internet will chase people down over anything and everything. 

Certain parts didn’t translate well, most other parts did! Remember, it was a satirical take, and while not one of my favorite videos, it definitely flew right over people’s heads. You kinda had to scrape off the face-value to see the context underneath, and analysing it made it easier to see the comedic effect Jello was trying to get. 

It was ALSO almost 6 years ago. The dude has a series based on AC that he did with his friends that is already a diverse world. 

People want him to take WTT down and apologize, but... he doesn’t have to take it down. Its a somewhat relevant, somewhat poorly aged satirical cartoon he meant for people to laugh at. People took it seriously and, while the quote I’ve been talking about can be taken as transphobic, if you look at the piece as a whole, its purely attacking the 2014 assholes.

((Ok, so now that’s over: political correctness, feminism, and SJWs are a whole can of worms and again, I’m only gonna continue repeating this: be kind. It doesn’t hurt to be respectful towards people’s race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. Just be kind.))

Onto the rest of the video!

WTT is still somewhat relevant, considering portions of it. (still not a fan of the trigger portion, but that’s for another day and I’m tired)

1:22-2:30 is still true! Check your sources kids! Also, the part of ‘if you don't reblog you’re heartless!’ It’s like those chain letters of ‘if you don’t send this to 20 people then SHE’LL be in ur room at 3am tonight’. I hate seeing those. There are absolutely people on here that are self-diagnosing and are almost always incorrect in their ‘diagnosis’. If you want a diagnosis, please go to an actual doctor and not a stranger on the internet, or even TRUST what half the info you see says. The facts/symptoms on tumblr are so out of proportion and sometimes aren’t even ‘facts’.

That’s all I’ve got for WTT, but there’s a couple other takes I think would help form a better understanding:

@hotfox69‘s long take. While I don’t agree with it wholeheartedly, it makes a lot of really, really good points.

@themightylorax​ had a small take on it. I can’t tell when this was created, but 2014 Tumblr was garbage. It was not a safe place, and the people defending it as a ‘safe place’ knew it wasn’t. It’s just a little better now, but there are still pitchfork-wielding people out on the platform.

@kingofdersecest​ has a cursing and somewhat vulgar take, and while I don’t agree with parts of it, it surrounds the rest of the video and simplifies it down into what Jello was jabbing at.

Tl;Dr: Jello’s Welcome to Tumblr didn’t age well in certain aspects, and while some of it is relevant today, a lot of it was focused on the overly political correctness of 2014 tumblr and the radical feminism and inclusionism that took place. It was also made 6 years ago. The quote in question can absolutely be taken as transphobic out of context, though it was directed as a satirical take on the aggressive people of 2014 tumblr.

[thetruscumsiren]

Eh no one asked but just for reference, I am

Pro

Non-binary (dysphoric)

Military (to an extent)

Choice

Transmedicalism

Vaccination

Science

Religion (to an extent)

SFW age regression

Otherkin (to an extent)

GNC (trans and cis)

LGBT

Planned Parenthood

Polygamy/polyamory (true polyamory, not trying to make an excuse for cheating)

Education

BDSM (it’s not an excuse to be abusive)

Anti

Bullying

Racism

Homophobia

Transphobia

Biphobia

Aphobia

Ableism

Sexism

Suicide baiting

Pedophilia (including DDLG and variants)

Harassment

Nazi

Communism

White supremacy

Colorism

Extremism

Death Penalty

Abuse

Flat Earth

Rape/Sexual Harassment

Fujoshi

Religious Discrimination

War

Neutral

Ace inclusionism/exclusionism

Modern feminism

Pro-gun vs anti-gun

Modern social justice (the current community is,,,something)

MOGAI (yes it can be harmful but holy shit y’all are harsh)

Shipping

Immigration control

Pornography

I lean Democrat and I lean liberal, but I’m closer to the centrist part of the spectrum.

I try to keep an open mind in certain issues (if you try to convince me that, for example, stuff like homophobia is okay, then no, I won’t have an open mind).

[This was all I could think of so this list may not be complete, or may be subject to change]

[bekkaa]

ace exclusionism and other exclusionist practices are horrible and lead to transphobia/terf ideologies and i will NOT tolerate EITHER of them. and all y’all need to be more careful about who you reblog from. download shinigami eyes, pick up on terf rhetoric, check bios of new peoples and check bios of ops on posts about feminism, gender issues, inclusionism, sex work issues, and everything else terf infiltrate and corrupt. 

do your damn work. 

[to-be-deleted-soon-just-wait]

My About/FAQ

Here is a little about myself.

I am Alecander, y'all can call me Alec though. I am a Male, Bisexual. I'm taken.

-----

Here are my Pros & Antis:

:Political Pros:

Pro-Consitition

Pro-Gun Restrictions/control (Not Ban)

Pro-Gun

Pro-Freedom of Speech

Pro-Science/Facts/Logic/ Rationality/Studies/Statistics

:Political Antis:

Anti-Science Deniers/Science Haters

Anti-Sexism against all genders/Anti-RMM

Anti-Racism against all races/Anti-Superiority of any Race

Anti-ACAB (All Cops Are Bad)/Anti-BlueLivesMatter

Anti-Feminism/Anti-Radical Feminism

Anti-Fascism/Anti-Authoritarianism

Anti-'Antifa'

Anti-Anarchism

Anti-Communism/Anti-Socalism Anti-Every Religion

Anti-MAPs/NOMAPs/SOMAPs/Pedophiles

Anti-Radicalism/Anti-War/Violence/Anti-Bullying/Anti-Abuse

:Political Neutrals/Skeptic:

The Military Transgender ban

Donald Trump in general

:Medical/Health Pros:

Pro-Science/Facts/Logic/ Rationality/Studies/Statistics

Pro-Health

Pro-Vaccines

Pro-Choice/Abortion

Pro-Recreational/Medical/Federal Marijuana

:Medical/Health Antis:

Anti-HAES

Anti-Science Deniers/Science Haters

Anti-Ableism/Anti-Self Diagnosis

:Medical/Health Neutrals/Skeptic:

N/A

:Religious Pros:

Pro-Science/Facts/Logic/ Rationality/Studies/Statistics

:Religious Antis:

Anti-Science Deniers/Science Haters

Anti-LGBTphobia/Transphobia/TERD/TERF/SWERF/TEHM/TELF/Tucute/MOGAI

Anti-Cisphobia

:Religious Neutrals/Skeptic:

N/A

:LGBT Pros:

Pro-LGBT. Lesbian Women, Gay males, Bisexual Men & Women, and Gender Dysphoric people/Transgender People

Pro-Transmedicalism

Pro-Science/Facts/Logic/ Rationality/Studies/Statistics

:LGBT Antis:

Anti-Science Deniers/Science Haters

Anti-Tucute/MOGAI/Neo-Pronouns/Trenders

Anti-LGBTphobia/Transphobia/TERD/TERF/SWERF/TEHM/TELF

Anti-Cisphobia

Anti-Aro/Ace inclusionism ( they aren't LGBT)

The "Non-Binary" Gender

:LGBT Neutrual/Skeptic:

The Transgender Military Ban

-------

More about me:

I follow the Egalitarian philosophy.

My Religion is Secular Humanism.

I am a Political Centrist.

I believe in, & support Transmedicalism. I am a Transmedicalist.

I am a Pacifist.

If anyone has any questions, Asks & Anon is on. I answer all questions.

[mogai-sunflowers]

critical inclusionism: clarifications

what critical inclusionism IS-

- supportive of mspec lesbians, lesbian men, mspec gays, vincian/gay women, all non-binary people, all trans people, all xenogender people, all a-spec people, and all m-spec people

- supportive of trans men and transmascs having the language they deserve to describe their oppression (i.e supportive of terms like transandrophobia and transmisandry)

- analyzing inclusionism through context and queer liberation, not just “this is valid just because”

- against stating that the language someone can use for themselves is harmless (ie- against saying ‘words are just words’ because that ignores the very real impact that language can have- for example, identifying as mspec lesbian isn’t harmful, but a white person identifying as two-spirit is. words are more than just words- context matters)

- against all gender-criticals, TERFS, radical feminism, transmedicalism, ‘transracial’ as used in the ‘i identify as a different race/i want to transition races’ way, ‘transabled’ as used in the ‘i am abled but identify as disabled’ way, and ‘transage’ as used in the ‘i am an adult but identify as a child so it’s okay for me to sexually and romantically engage with a child’

- against the concept of validity in a queer context (i.e- there is no such thing as validity when it comes to actual queer identity, because queerness is about liberation and celebration, not cherry-picking)

- queer as in fuck you

- applying critical thinking and context to why queer identities are beautiful, and why some non-queer identities aren’t

- a celebration of queer people of color and cultural identities; pro-BLM/ACAB/landback/abolition, anti-ALM/Blue lives matter/BTB

what critical inclusionism is NOT

- “you need to prove you have ‘enough’ history and context to be valid/you’re not valid if your term doesn’t have much history”

- proship

- pro-harassment

- “this is valid just because”

[headinthebubbles]

Are you a radical feminist?

If feminism built upon a moral foundation of intersectionality and inclusionism is radical then yes, I am