#it's always the lesbian community being invaded

[gray-ace-space]

recently encountered a post where someone said "gender is fluid but sexuality isn't". (they were talking about bi lesbians.)

my first thought was: does that person, like. hear what they're saying? how can you explicitly hold two beliefs that are so logically inconsistent and not see it? how can you simultaneously think gender is this fluid and complex thing, but sexuality, much of which is defined around gender, is simple and stationary and its boundaries need policing?

but like, fuck, why even argue against it, right? there is no internal logic because there is no logical thought behind it. these are not genuine beliefs. this person is repeating what is currently acceptable in their (small) specific social circle. this is the same person who, a few years back, would be excluding nonbinary lesbians, but nonbinary lesbians are cool and normal on queer tumblr now, so they'll exclude bi lesbians instead, and not even pause to reflect on the difference.

oh, and if you read this and thought "these people don't even actually accept nb lesbians either", ding ding ding! because it's not a real, deep belief, that acceptance is extremely shallow and conditional. so as soon as someone is an nb lesbian in a way these people find odd (like being both a man and a lesbian) they will exclude them too and find a way to justify it.

why do we have to endlessly go through this cycle with queer identities. can we not? can we just not. i'm tired.

[genderqueerdykes]

absolutely off the rails behavior when cis lesbians become enraged when you tell them that it's butchphobic to exclude butches who are transfemme, trans women, transmasc, men, take testosterone, have penises, and/or get top/bottom surgery from the butch and lesbian community. like the fact that we have historically always belonged to the lesbian community has been coming from the mouths of gnc and transfemme & transmasc butches for decades but everyone plugs their ears and doesn't listen.

the lesbian community has such a long and rich history of being a safe place for transfemme, trans women, transmasc, masc, intersex, genderqueer, non binary, and male presenting people who take testosterone and get top and bottom surgeries. before the rise of lesbian separatism and political lesbianism, transmascs & transfemme butches in lesbian spaces were not an issue. also in the past there just wasn't anywhere else for us to go. we were shoved into lesbian spaces by force, but also wanted to stay there because it's a community that's dear to our hearts and still means a lot to us

lesbians were the ones who made it safe for us to be there in the first place.

it's unfathomable to see people who say you should respect butches when it comes to their pronouns, identity, etc., to not invalidate their genders, to not assume anything about what gender they identify with- but the second they find out that some butches who are transfemme, trans women, or take T and still identify as lesbians and dykes they police our identities and bodies and insinuate that we can't be real butch lesbians for x, y and z reasons.

it's just insidious to exclude transfem butches and butch trans women on so many levels. i see this constantly and it's never called out as a form of butchphobia as well as a form of transmisogyny, especially when that person does not want to get bottom surgery. to call any MtF butch a man that's invading the lesbian community is to admit that one knows nothing about the complex gender identities and struggles transfemme butches and butch trans women face. to identify this way is one of the most prolific and powerful expressions of butchness, and what it means to be a butch lesbian. to deny these people the right to call themselves butch is inherently, inarguably butch and lesbophobic as well as trans/misogynistic.

to chase any of these people out of butch, lesbian, dyke and sapphic spaces is inherently butchphobia. yes, butchphobia affects perisex cis butch women, but it also affects so many more people. it affects transmascs and men. it affects genderqueer and non binary people. it affects bigender men. it affects transfemme lesbians and trans lesbian women. it affects trans girls and mtf lesbians in general. it affects intersex people. it affects lesboys. it affects boy/guydykes. it affects queer people of color. it affects studs.

it affects dykes, lesbians, and sapphics in general. this is a form of lesbophobia, trans/androphobia, intersexism, and especially butchphobia, no matter what. we have to accept ALL butches who don't fit into a neat little box of what a masculine queer person should be like.

[mommyclaws]

Is everyone willingly ignoring it or when are we going to realize this petty label discourse has always been rooted in misogyny. This started long before Bi Lesbians. Some of you are just too new or simply never paid enough attention to realize the history of this hatred of lesbians. Do any of you remember?

First it was "Butches aren't valid" because they were invading wlw spaces with their "masculinity"

Then it was moved onto: "Trans women aren't valid" because actually they were the ones invading wlw spaces with their "masculinity" The exact same arguement being used against cis women as well.

Then "Pan/Bi women aren't valid" because your attraction to men or anyone other than a woman doesn't belong in wlw spaces.

Then it was "Nonbinary lesbians aren't valid" because if you're "not a woman" by my definition you're invading wlw spaces.

"Asexual/Aro women aren't valid" because your lack of "real" attraction to women doesn't belong in wlw spaces.

"Lesboys aren't valid" because you are invading wlw spaces with your "masculinity"

"Bi/Pan lesbians aren't valid" because your attraction to men or anyone other than a woman doesn't belong in wlw spaces.

Oh wait? Where have we heard those last two before? Wasn't everyone arguing about those SAME issues with Butches/Trans wlw and Pan/Bi wlw?

Yes, exactly. Would any of you take ONE look back and realize this is only repetition of problems we have already decided don't dictate our identities?

They say, "You're not a real lesbian unless you do this and that and even if you do that you'll never be good enough." No matter what lesbains do, there will always be a problem. Why? Because this isnt about being a lesbian, this isnt about women, this is rhetoric started by terfs and it will never be anything more.

Sure, you can follow their rules to feel valid, but you'll never be good enough. You're an invader too because they'll sprinkle in little things to feed the insecurities and rules that THEY fucking created.

You're not a real lesbian unless you're a "gold star lesbain" meaning you've never dated or been attracted to a man. You're not a real lesbian unless you're feminine. You're not a real lesbian unless you hate masculinity.

Which is just translation for: You're not a real wlw unless you hate men and don't deviate from gender norms. And, WHO would've thought! Is exactly what terfs want.

They sink their claws into the newer generations because they don't remember what our community has had to go through, all they see is the fake issues created and they think it's a threat because they're being fed "This is what's valid and this is what's not" and it seems like it's never going to end because women being anything other than passive and simple with their identities are immediately taken as a threat to the community by those who are insecure and need to demand the exclusion of anyone who doesn't follow their rules to feel like theyre part of a group.

Anti-Bi/Pan Lesbians have become sheep because they only surround themselves with online discourse instead of the real issues LGBTQ people face and in their attempt to keep a "clean community" They're more unwelcomed than the people they tell to kill themselves. So caught up in fake problems others or themslves have made up that they fail to grasp the simplest of concepts: Labels DO NOT exist in real life. Labels are created to help people describe how they feel or identify. They are not and have NEVER been a final definition.

Labels are worn HOWever and WHENever the owner feels like it. They're not collars. They're not cages. You can't use them as such. You can't use them against us.

When? WHEN? When did we decide that a label- A WORD- matters MORE than the real life feelings that real life people are experiencing?

Why did we dehumanize the ability to feel attraction and expression?

[womanman]

The Similarities Between Biphobia and Transmultiphobia

I am a multigender bisexual. Before I began to focus my efforts into transgender and multigender activism, I was BIG into bisexual activism. But, because of this, I’ve noticed something peculiar… Something that other multigenders have noticed too.

A lot of modern-day transmultiphobia (particularly those directed towards those who are both male and female) is, quite simply (and I mean this in a very literal way), repackaged biphobia from the peak of biphobic discourse.

This includes, but isn’t limited to:

The “fence-sitter” perspective. Multigenders and bisexuals are seen as sitting on the fence of the binary. We can belong in both communities (gay and straight, male and female). But because of this ability to be in both, we are not allowed into either.

This is because of us being seen as “tainted by the other gender,” or as an “invader”. Both the idea that bisexuals are less “purely” WLW or MLM than their gay counterparts, and the “men vs non-men” dichotomy that we’re seeing be put up, are evidence of this. When it comes to discussion gay and lesbian M/F multigenders, this comparison is very apt. I mean, “your association with men / women has made you unable to belong with us” is VERY on the nose.

The view that it’s “just a phase.” Both existence as a bisexual and as a multigender, from my experience, is seen as something you will go through before you “choose a side”, before you “settle down” with a real, PROPER choice. One of the two choices that you’re given, rather than both.

Making people angry because of how we make them insecure. “If this person attracted to men and women can belong in the queer community,” wonders the biphobe, “What does that mean for the state of my queerness?” And likewise, the transmultiphobe asks, “If this person is both a man and a woman, then what does that mean for my attraction?”

I believe that this is because bisexuality and multigenderism both have… “Both.” In a world, with a binary, that expects — DEMANDS — that you pick either/or, saying “both” (or, heaven forbid, “both, and…”) will always be met with extreme rejection and isolation.

Multigender and bisexual activists could learn a lot from each other. We are so often told to hide or cut off one part of ourselves in order to fit into some sort of (any sort of!) set of norms, and to conform to the male/female binary. We fuck with people’s views of sexuality and gender merely by existing, and we are nothing short of revolutionary for that reason.

[meret118]

In 1976, when prolific writer, activist and self-described Black lesbian mother warrior poet Audre Lorde published her seminal poetry collection, Coal, the world wide web was still 17 years away from becoming a public-facing invention, and the platform of podcasting hadn’t even been dreamt up yet. The volume established her as a champion for women, Blackness, queerness and equity in the explosive 1970s Black Arts Movement—other works to come, like Sister Outsider, positioned Lorde as a justice-demanding mouthpiece for people who’d been shoved into the crosshairs of marginalization.

She was highly quotable and, in recent years as discussions about mental health and the prioritization of personal peace have become more frequent and fervent, one of her most notable lines of writing has become its own celebrity: “Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.” From that sentence, knit into the reflective context of A Burst of Light, Lorde’s award-winning contemplation on the healthcare system and the cancer that had invaded her body, the concept of “self-care” was popularized and made real.

“We noticed that in the public discourse, particularly in media and social media, there are several Black feminist terms, ideas and practices floating around,” says Klingenberg, a curator of Black music and entertainment in the museum’s division of cultural and community life, in an interview after the series debuted earlier this year. “But they’re always disconnected from the Black feminist thinkers who created them, the context in which they were created, and in some instances, from the very meaning that the original creators were thinking of when they created them.”

Like many terms that originate in the canon of Black art and thought, self-care has been swallowed into a vortex of mainstream overuse and lack of attribution.

. . .

In 1977, the women of the Combahee River Collective released a groundbreaking statement “defining and clarifying” the politics of Black feminism. It was also arguably the first time that the phrase “identity politics” would appear, and Smith is credited with coining the term.“We were not saying that we were superior to any other groups of oppressed people,” says Smith in the podcast. “We were not being a vanguard. We did not think that we were the only people on Earth who were oppressed. We just wanted to assert that unlike the women’s movement and unlike the Black liberation movement at that time, that there was a particular set of situations, circumstances and experiences and oppressions that Black women experienced, and that we needed to deal with those. And that’s what we meant by identity politics.”

More at the link, including the podcasts.

[bilesproblems]

I genuinely don't understand how there are nonbinary exclusionists. What business do you have being on their side?

You know from personal experience that gender is a social construct and can be fluid, or can be simultaneous. It's a vast spectrum. If orientation is based mainly off of gender, then orientation would also be at least partially a social construct, a vast spectrum, and have the capacity to be fluid or simultaneous. If you disagree with those being true for orientation, you would have to claim that they're not true for gender.

You're misgendered by every single exclusionist saying lesbian means "nonmen loving nonmen" as a way to discredit mspec lesbians. You're misgendered by every exclusionist who says that being attracted to multiple non-masculine genders is mono instead of mspec. Unless you view yourself as some type of girl, you're being misgendered. Mspec lesbians acknowledge that we, even as exclusive lesbians, are mspec because of our attraction to elsegender people. Why would you rather align yourself with people that so blatantly disrespect your gender identity than with people that you don't understand?

Every single exclusionist talking point is a result of TERFs. "Lesbians can't like men" is a result of lesbian separatism, a TERF led movement. "You're letting men into lesbian spaces!" is radfem fearmongering that women can't be safe around men ever, and relies entirely on bioessentialism. "Lesbian is the only sexuality that doesn't include men" blatant lie to anyone that can name more than 10 orientations, and enforces the importance of having an orientation completely void of men (again that's radfem fearmongering.) "But the definition!" it's a shitty definition. And it exists because of the way lesbian separatism recentered lesbian identity around men and not liking men instead of about the people we actually are attracted to. "You're just mspec and selfish for trying to invade the lesbian community" is radfem multiphobia that mspec women are tainted by their relationships with men, or betraying womanhood by choosing to associate with men. You gotta learn history enough to realize that the strict exclusion of men in lesbian attraction and lesbian identity is not how it's always been and also not a natural progression of language, it was a TERF movement. You're gonna be a lot more accepting of lesbian men and lesbians who unapologetically love men when you know that.

If you're nonbinary, you should not be an exclusionist. Everything exclusionists stand for disregards your identity.

[olderthannetfic]

https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/753295388848553984/thinking-the-progressive-pride-flag-is-ugly-is#notes

Bruh, I'm sorry but that reasoning does not hold up to any scrutiny if you even give a lick of care to learn the actual bullshit that goes on in queer sphere.

"(poc+trans) they’re marginalized even within the community,"

I'm a bisexual woman. I've been explicitly and blatantly excluded from queer and LGBT+ events when it came out I was 100% bisexual. Even at times where I had a woman as a partner. I've had to deal with accusations of being a predator from the lesbian community when dating lesbians, or "invading" lesbian spaces. I've dealt with accusations of transphobia for using the label bisexual, rather than "more inclusive" labels. I've been told to shut up when talking about my experiences as a bisexual woman, especially if it was me criticizing the behavior from the rest of queer spaces.

I've had to deal with being excluded from queer community events, helplines, or other resources for queer people because I was bisexual. Do not get me started on the times I was with a man, or male presenting partner. I've had to deal with people demanding that bisexuals get dropped from queer spaces, and that we should "choose a side" and that bisexuality doesn't exist.

And you know what? I know that the exact same shit happens to aces. In a slightly different coat of paint, but it nonetheless the same level of vitriol and exclusion happens on a constant basis. There's a reason why there's such a deep solidarity between aces and bis "It’s a flag that was created to draw attention to intra-community issues,"

It's a flag that pretends to draw attention to intra-community issues, but in reality only shines light on a tiny part, and in reality doesn't even do that well. I don't even think most people flying that flag have any idea as to the alleged specifics of why these designs were made. I've seen people throw out incredibly subjective and/or vague assumptions and assertions as to why they exist, while they're clearing doing guesswork.

It's not your accusation that people believe that the "progress pride flag is separating trans people and POC and acting like they weren’t previously included" it's that it feels incredibly shallow and ignorant of queer history, and queer POC history and racism-even from within queer POC spaces-.

It's the problem that people think that flying that flag while doing absolute fuck all to change the problems in queer communities is enough, intra-community also doesn't work if the communities represented don't also actively weed out their own problems. Don't add me I know about the NB-phobia, and inter-trans transphobia, "If you want to pass you're a traitor", dumbshit like "no rice or spice" shit from poc users on (certain) queer dating sites... That shit is and was never exclusive to white people.

The rainbow flag as a battleground for these issues feels cheap, shallow, and childish because it was never created to exclude or target a specific sexuality. It was always a symbol of togetherness and fighting for our rights and right to live. Then some people decided that the flag that always represented the message "We're standing together" suddenly doesn't represent that message anymore, not because the flag doesn't stand for togetherness or the message has changed. No, it's because some idiots completely unrelated to the flag and it's meaning are being terrible people. No, just because someone is queer doesn't mean they get to poison the well for all other queer people and rot the meaning of a flag that always was for everyone, or their actions suddenly get to smear that the meaning of the flag from the get go included everyone, black, white, asian, brown, fucking translucent, and was always meant to show solidarity between all the sexualities. We're standing together as queers, but that doesn't mean individual queers can't be shits all on their own.

At this point we should just slap a triangle on all the pride flags, the flags themselves have absolutely nothing to do with it, but at least we can pretend like it does something, because a few dingbats can't behave and happen to be #that-sexuality/genderID. Let's add a bi and ace triangle to the gay, lesbian and trans-flag. Add an extra trans triangle to the trans-flag, maybe the NB and bi flag as well.

You can have your progress pride flag. You can have your feel good messaging if that's what it takes. But for the love of the rainbow, stop pretending the flag is anything but a shallow way to show-off that you at least know the surface level issues in the queer community.

--

[shipposttt]

The Ship of the Day: Buddie

Character names: Evan “Buck” Buckley x Edmundo “Eddie” Diaz

Ship name: Buddie 

Original Content:  9-1-1

Info about ship: 

Continuing with our firefighters theme from the previous post, 9-1-1 is a TV show following a fire house in Los Angeles as they go about their daily lives, saving people in daring rescues, dealing with funny accidents and being all around badasses. At the centre of the show is the 5 main firefighters, 118 Captain Robert “Bobby” Nash, paramedics Henrietta “Hen” Wilson and Howard “Chimney” Han, and finally, the topic of this post, special rescues duo Evan “Buck” Buckley and Edmundo “Eddie” Diaz. 

Yes, firefighters apparently really like their nicknames.

(Also, just look at Eddie's left hand placement in that gif, that's a strong grip on Buck's waist)

Buck and Eddie are the young, traditionally handsome members of the team, performing daring rescues with an ongoing repartee with one another. Best friends by their own descriptions, they were not always as close as they are in the later seasons. During Eddie’s introduction to the show, Buck was very against him joining, feeling as if he were invading and taking his role. It was only after pulling a grenade out of a man’s leg together that they learnt that they could get along and began their friendship. A true enemies to lovers story.

Buck helped Eddie find special needs childcare for Eddie’s young son, Christopher, and has stepped into the role of second parental figure for him. Buck is very good with Christopher and takes care of him often, even saving his life after they end up in the middle of a tsunami. Christopher absolutely adores Buck, going to him for help when Eddie is not available or is the reason for Christopher’s ire.

Type of ship: Queer Bait 

The show is not scared of queer representation, it contains many characters who are part of the LGBTQ+ community including Hen being a married lesbian with a son and Bobby’s wife, Athena’s ex-husband being gay and after the divorce getting into a gay relationship. However, this seems to be the edge of where they go, they refuse to take this final step and instead insist on edging the fans on the will they, won’t they of Buck and Eddie. 

Firstly, there is a whole lot of longing staring at each other, like a lot.

Buck’s early behaviour towards Eddie is described by his sister Maddie as a “boy-crush”.

Additionally, both of them are incapable of keeping relationships with female characters. Most of these female characters are brought in simply and solely to act as possible vessels of relationships and so are incredibly one dimensional. The only female partner who is more than that is Eddie’s wife, who firstly disappears from Eddie and Christopher’s lives and then, once she is back, very quickly dies. Eddie describes dating, or more specifically dating women, as “putting on a performance”. 

Well, that’s a pretty queer-coded thought Edmundo. 

Most people headcanon Eddie as a gay man who was pressured into a straight relationship due to family and so married the first girl he could, before he then spent most of his married life deployd halfway across the world for the Army. Buck, on the other hand, is pretty often headcanoned as a bi-man who isn’t so much closeted as just doesn’t really talk about it. It's something about him, but it's just that his past few partners have been girls and so people assume he is straight. 

Going forward with more reasons Buddie is a queerbait, we return to Christopher Diaz. As mentioned earlier, Buck has taken up the role of a secondary parental figure for Christopher and this extends even into law. After Eddie is shot, something I’ll return to, and nearly dies, he ends up in the hospital for an extended period of time. Buck takes up the role of full time parent, firstly being the one to tell Chris that Eddie is hurt and then being the one to take care of him, getting him to school, bringing him to visit his dad. Altogether giving him full-time care. This is happening while Eddie has a girlfriend, a girlfriend who is a special needs teacher who knows how to take care of Christopher, and yet the job is still designated to Buck. As Eddie is healing he reveals to Buck that he changed his will and that, if he dies, Chris’ guardianship will pass to Buck. Not his girlfriend. Not his grandmother or aunt who he visits religiously, not even his parents. His best friend.

Baby trapping, anyone?

So, getting hurt. They both do it a lot. And I mean a lot. But it is not so much the injuries themselves that are important but the reactions of their other halves. When Eddie has a well collapse on top of him, Buck breaks down and starts trying to dig desperately with his bare hands, when Buck has a fire engine land on his leg and crush it, Eddie holds his hand and keeps him company while everyone else is working on getting the rig off of him. When Eddie is shot, Buck is the one to save him, facing one of his worst fears and going back under a fire engine for the first time since he got his leg crushed under one, to pull Eddie to safety. When Buck is struck by lightning, it is Eddie who screams for him, who lowers him from where he is hanging off the ladder and also the one performing CPR. When the medical professionals say they will do their best, Eddie tells them to “do more”. They both save each other's lives, they both are often fuelled by emotions when the other is hurt. It is very romance-coded. This is not to say platonic relationships can’t have this care, but it is almost always romantic relationships that have this care displayed on TV.

And the final part, the most damning evidence of the studio intentionally baiting fans. The Couch Theory. The Couch theory was created by fans and means the following: Buck’s couches are metaphors for his relationships. Every time he gets a new partner, a new couch happens, and every time he breaks from a relationship, the couch is gotten rid of. When he is questioned about this by other characters, he always says that it's because the couch is never right.

So where does he find the most comfortable couch, I hear you ask. Well, he often ends up on Eddie’s couch, even sometimes asleep there. So many of Buck and Eddie’s most important moments, their most queer-coded moments, occur on that couch. And in the most recent season, it seemed that fans were gonna get their way and the baiting was going to spawn into true queer. Throughout the season there were many inferences about the couches, Buck is unable to sleep on his couch so he goes to see Eddie and falls asleep on one side of the couch. Later in the season has Christopher falling asleep in the middle of the couch, and Eddie sits on the other side that wasn’t occupied by Buck earlier on. This creates an image of a family on that couch, two parents bookending their child. And what do the creators do with it? With the perfect set up they’ve built?

They give the two of them very hastily thrown in female love interests that have absolutely no background or connection to anything and then end the season before we can see any actual development. 

The creatives intentionally took the focus of a queer theory and set it up for an apparent result only to swipe it straight out from under the fans. It was a spit in the face to fans and the fans were not happy with it. Queerbaiting is one thing but queerbaiting with fans own queer metaphors is a new low. And yet Fox did it. 

Admin🦉

[kystriz]

les-boys ARE NOT valid, ur mocking the community and making us look like clowns, just say your straight and get over yourself, why are you making up different words jus to be included, you're not special for wanting to invade a persons place, idc if i get flamed for this but some of yall ARE STUPID, LESBIAN MEANS WLW women LOVE women, trans-fem, demi whatever, also yes, pronouns do nof always = gender, but u cant be a male like, FULLY or trans-male, you aren't homophobic for being straight.

YOU'RE NOT SPECIAL, please get ahold of yourself and stop making our community worse, this is dream-sexual all over again

also i did butcher this so if your confused on any part ill prob explain it better.

also some ppl are tryna act smarter when they fr jus look like a fucking clown HUH

[sadkachow]

sometimes i wish i wasn’t transmasc.

i love being me, but it just gets so exhausting. 

i’m not in an environment where i’m able to be entirely open about it, and it makes every moment when i’m with anyone i’m not out to exhausting. i feel like i’m putting on a show, pretending to be someone i’m not.

and then (and this is the main point of this post) sometimes it feels like the queer community hates people like me. not always, but certainly enough. enough to make me feel isolated, even in online spaces where i can be myself, because no one wants me to be me. the amount of shit i see by other queer people (even other trans men!) about how my manness somehow means i don’t experience oppression (which assumes every trans masc or man can or wants to pass—and even then, they must also be quiet about their transness), that trans mascs and men aren’t allowed to have the language to speak about their oppression, that we’re oppressing other trans people (by merit of being men, i guess???), that we’re evil disgusting monsters. 

the fear-mongering around t, the idea that it makes you bad and dangerous, the idea that certain effects of t are inherently disgusting and bad.

the way that we’re either seen as “evil vicious wicked men” or “poor dumb stupid girls- i mean boys- i mean girls”.

we’re hated because we’re failed women. 

we’re hated because we’re men.

no trans man or masc has ever experienced oppression based on their identity—and don’t you dare go look up the reported rates of violence, harassment, and s/a that we receive, don’t you dare look at how high they are! 

trans men aren’t allowed to see our transness and our manhood as connected in any way, they must be separated (“we have to protect queerness from disgusting masculinity”—which is also harmful to anyone who is comfortable or even enjoys experiencing and embracing their masculinity). 

gay trans men like me are introducing on the gay community.

straight trans men are either preying on innocent women, or they’re “better” than cis men, because they(“‘re not really men”) know what women want and are like and can thus serve women better!

trans men who still identify with lesbianism for whatever reason are either treated as women or treated (once again) as evil invaders out to harm women.

not to mention the trans mascs and men who identify with any other label than those three—no matter what, our identities and labels get twisted around to be used against us, to the point where sometimes it feels like maybe it’d be better if we didn’t identify as anything at all (except maybe that’d get turned against us too).

we get attacked for trying to have more neutral language (i.e. “pregant people” instead of “pregnant women”, “menstrual hygiene” instead of “feminine hygiene”, etc). we get attacked for having our own language (the way every single term used to describe transmasc oppression has been dissected and degraded until it’s become clear that maybe it’s not the word itself but simply the fact that we are using it).

we get told how much men are awful and horrible either as if we arent “really” men (“kill all men. but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones’ (aka: i don’t see you as a man)”), or because we’re just as bad and need to be separated and killed and harassed and hated (“kill all men, including trans men. you can’t be mad, you’re asking for it by (existing as yourself) being a man!” “trans men really are the men of the lgbtqia+ community” (this is also a form of malgendering—gendering someone correctly for the sake of harming or attacking them (aka with malicious intent))).

i see so much help and resources for other queer people, but hardly any for trans mascs/men. i’ve seen support that parades itself as “for trans people”, and then it turns out it’s for all trans people except trans men. (this isn’t an exaggeration, by the way. i’ve seen multiple respurces that say that they’re for the support of all trans people, and then if you actually read into it, they’re for the support of trans women and nonbinary people only—which is completely fine that those support groups exist! but then don’t label it as “for all trans people” if it’s not for all trans people. that’s exclusionary, and can also present nonbinary identities as “women-lite”—and also often leaves no space for trans women and nonbinary people who present in a more masculine way or who also identify with manhood/as men to some degree, or for nonbinary people who dont identify with womanhood/as women at all.)

violence against trans men is so often erased because we’re misgendered even in death. we’re forcefully detransitioned. we’re s/a-ed and abused at extremely high rates.

we’re pitiful misled girls or failed women or wicked evil men or pick me’s or vile abusers. 

we’re evil and we cannot be hurt or oppressed because we’re men, as if that is not a point of view that is based on bioessentialism/gender essentialism, racism, intersexism, and extremely harmful (especially to marginalised men in general—trans or not). 

no identity is uniquely capable or incapable of harm—anyone can harm anyone, regardless of who they are.

and yet, and yet, and yet, it’s alright because we asked for it by simply being us.

sometimes it just feels so isolating to be a trans boy, because everywhere i look, there’s people hating me for existing.

im just so tired of it.

(clarification: i know not all of the queer community holds this stance. i’ve seen and/or met wonderful queer people of all identities who have been understanding and accepting. i’m also not trying to say that the things mentioned in this are only driven forward by the community—plenty of people who aren’t in it do this stuff as well. what i mean is just that it feels as if this sort of talk—particularly radfem rhetoric—has been incredibly pervasive lately, at least from what i’ve experienced. i feel like a lot of people forget it’s not just the “trans exclusionary” part of TERFs that is bad, but the radical feminism as well. radical feminism isn’t good. it’s incredibly bioessentialist, racist, intersexist, and harmful in so many other ways by its nature. but it still stands so clearly in so many places. this is also by no means a comphrensive list on the treatment of trans mascs/men. i’m not infallible. there’s certainly other things that have happened that i’ve either forgotten or am not aware of—and if anyone wants to add on, feel free!)

[genderqueerdykes]

Aye what do you think about the things some trans folks say when they’re overly bitter? i.e: “I want all cis people to die and suffer, all cis people don’t know about oppression” etc. I’ve seen people say it genuinely and it’s kind of worrying, like someone could be radicalized into some pinkwashed form of fascism. (Ik that will probably never happen but I’ll like to see ways we can stop these ill intended retorts)

i get where you're coming from. honestly it makes me uncomfortable when trans people start saying things like that. right now i'm getting so many messages hearing that people are currently saying things to the effect of "i want all men/transmascs to die," or "i hope all trans men get [assaulted]" type of statements right now as well as those

i've also heard "i'm twinkphobic, i hate all twinks, they're so annoying, i hope they die," and "i hate butches they're men invading the lesbian community." i've also heard the same about trans women and trans men. people love to be gross and angry toward bears. it's a really saddening sight to see. projecting some type of insecurity on a group they don't understand.

there are queer cis people, but we also have to respect being cis is not inherently bad. same with straight people, gay people, bi people, transmascs, transfemmes, butches, bears, twinks, pansexual people, multigender people, genderfluid people, intersex people, non binary people... no queer group is inherently bad. people will begin to project that bitterness on to whatever they feel is "ruining," or "invading" the community.

all in all i just avoid it. it's very toxic. i don't want to make poor assumptions about other people in general if i don't have to. it's not a good coping mechanism. it's best to express frustration with behaviors than genuinely harmless queer identities.

it does feel like an attempt to control other people, yes. some people are very aggressive in their opinions on how the community "should" operate and it's really over the top. i think it's because they're not in control of their own identities and lives so they have to try to go somewhere where they are able to control someone else. it's just unproductive

it feels misanthropic in general ?

hope that made sense. take care of yourself, it's always fine to just ignore those types of conversation. not your responsibility to resolve that in someone else

[leomoon65]

The photo/ artwork belongs to @triple-phoenix . I simply just wrote a fanfiction inspired by the art. All art credit goes to them, not me, I’m just the writer.

Warnings: Angst, Slight Bullying, idk flirting?

Written for: AFAB, this fic was for someone and i decided to post it, “M” the best friend is NB so they can be whoever you want.

DNI: *read pinned post*

——————————————————————————

Summary: You are a shy girl who just moved to the Jackson commune with your best friend. While still adjusting to your new-found home and life of being around others, you run into Dina, a girl who rather lightly bully you over telling anyone she has an ounce of attraction for you. (spoilers: her little crush weighs about 10lbs). What happens when, one morning, Dina decides to show her odd affection over a pile of eggs?

——————————————————————————

You and your best friend M have been in Tommy and Maria Miller’s community for about a week. You two traveled like most young people and landed in Jackson, Wyoming, hoping to find somewhere safe forever. So far, besides the Millers, you (and J) have met Ellie, a lesbian with witty humor and awkward tendencies. Her artist girlfriend, Cat, has been begging to tattoo your ink-virgin arm. Jesse is a southern boy with a big heart who is always there for you, especially when you first started, and sisters that you and M have gotten to know… sort of. Talia, the oldest, is an intelligent girl with protective tendencies of her sister but is always down to have a good time and her rude but mysterious… little sister Dina. 

Now, you could say Dina is nice to M, an angel to them per se. When you two first got to Jackson, Dina had the task of giving you two and some other young adults a tour of the community, a mayor per se. After her tour, Dina talked M’s ear off about anything and everything, even battering her eyes. M, while being nice, seemed interested in Dina in a friendly manner but had googly eyes for the older sister, Talia… to Dina’s dislike. You might be wondering how Dina treats you; well, she would rather bully you. Some background, you’re quite shy, having M talk for the both of you at the start, and you also hate conflict. Dina read right through you and now always has something up her sleeve. 

Dina is not a cruel bully, per se, to everyone else, she has a fat crush on you that she REFUSES to acknowledge or maybe she does accept it but chooses to bully you instead of telling you… she’s Dina, okay. Dina’s “bullying” is teasing a rather innocent you over little things. She’ll tell you your flannel is unbuttoned and laugh to herself while you check. She will purposely switch the patrol list so you and her are stuck together for at least 7 hours as she invades everything about your life with questions you answer. It’s fun for Dina and for you; you just want to make peace with a 5’3 bisexual that you think hates you. 

On this particular day, you, M, and everyone else are up for breakfast in the morning. There are Eggs, Bacon, and Turkey sausage on the side with Hash-Browns with some water… that’s all they have for a “healthy” drink in the apocalypse minus beer and other alcohol. You make yourself a plate and choose bacon because you have always liked it. You look to find M, who you usually sit with but is now flirting with Talia while she eats but enjoys it, smiling while your best friend tries to impress her.  You giggle to yourself softly as you sit down at a table. You start to salt and pepper your eggs as you feel a mysterious presence. “BOO!” you hear an all too familiar voice. It’s Dina. She’s sporting her usual maroon shirt (dance scene) with some sweatpants she found due to its fall in Jackson, and she has no patrol today. 

She looks at your plate. “Bacon, huh? Icky,” Dina says, as it is against her religion to eat pork rather than her overall dislike for the pig-like food. “I—i’m sorry, Dina,” you say softly, not wanting to offend her. She smiles as she holds her fork from her own food tray, for which she opts for turkey sausage due to no pork in the links. She gets really close to you (while making you incredibly nervous… but sort of flustered) and says, “Gimme yer eggs, nerd.” She has a little angry arch to her brow as she smiles, giving the impression she wants your eggs, similar to a high school bully wanting lunch money. “D— Dina”! You say, cheeks all blushed, but a worried look, not knowing what to do. Dina stabs her fork on your eggs and puts a small piece from the scrabbled batch in her mouth.  “Mmm, yummy,” she says, enjoying her newfound stolen treasure of your eggs. 

“Dina?” you say, gaining some confidence. “Um, those were my eggs; why didn’t you put more on your plate if you wanted some”? You say with a friendly but still worried smile. Dina turns her head and gets close to you again. “Because I enjoy watching pretty girls like you get all flustered over some eggs.” She boops… yes, she boops your nose as she takes another bite. 

You just sit there in so much confusion. Does she like you? Is she playing games with you? Is she bored? So many questions rush through your head. Soon, your cheeks go red out of embarrassment/confusion. Dina puts her hand on your shoulder to take you out of your deep thoughts of what this girl could possibly want. “Hey, they’re just eggs, pretty girl, no need to get all scrambled up,” she says as she has finished her plate and gets up to put her tray away, ultimately leaving you with butterflies in your stomach over this mysterious Jewish girl. 

End A/N: I lowkey forgot I had this account, let alone fics and such. I hope you enjoy this shorter angst read with you and Dina. I did proofread this for once, but still, any errors, please be kind. Again, the artwork is done by @triple-phoenix // Please read the pinned post if you want a fic yourself. Anyways, thanks again. See you in the next one- c

[ugly-anarchist]

lesbian literally means non-man attracted to non-men in what world is bi lesbian a valid identity

In this world it's a valid identity! Mostly because "non-man attracted to non-men" isn't the definition of lesbian and is both exclusionary and, weirdly, still inclusive to bisexuals!

Bisexual means you're attracted to two or more genders. There's a lot of genders out there that aren't "man" or male/masculine aligned. By your definition of lesbian you can, in fact, be a non-man who is attracted to multiple non-man gender identities. Which would make someone, ya know, an mspec lesbian.

However, let's say that someone is bigender. This hypothetical person is both a man and a woman and they are exclusively attracted to women. This is, by definition, a woman exclusively attracted to other women. But because they're also a man, they would be excluded from your definition of lesbian.

Also, you are defining lesbianism based solely on the exclusion of men which is, and I can't stress this enough, fucked up and weird. Like, I don't know how to explain it, focusing lesbianism on men instead of attraction to women is kind of weird.

It also implies that non-binary is woman-lite. Like if you're an agender person who is exclusively attracted to other agender people then by your definition that would be lesbianism. Assuming of course the hypothetical agender person is afab and presents femininely. Because, let's be real here, if an amab agender person who presents masculine identified as a lesbian then there would be no question about what you thought about that. That person would immediately be called a male invader and told they weren't welcome.

Lesbian has always meant "gay attraction towards women". There are people alive today that I have personally spoken to who confirm this. My mother is 50, she identified as a lesbian when she was in her early twenties and she has told me stories about what it was like being a queer woman back then. She told me stories about how the community was full of political lesbians (straight women who identified as lesbians as a political statement) who shunned bisexual women and excluded them from the community. That's right, anti-bi lesbianism was started by straight women who identified as lesbians as a fucking political statement. And guess what? These women were also very transphobic and even homophobic towards gay men.

Redefining the word lesbian specifically so you can exclude bisexual women from lesbian spaces is, in fact, biphobic as hell! Bisexual lesbians aren't invaders, predatory, or anything! If you are uncomfortable sharing a space with bisexual lesbians then that's not anyone's problem but your own. There is no danger whatsoever with bisexual people sharing a space with lesbians nor is there an issue with bisexual people identifying as lesbians! Every single argument I've seen as to why it was "dangerous" for bisexual lesbians to exist is complete and utter bullshit and steeped in biphobia with a sprinkling of transphobic dogwhistles!

You are not on the side of good here! You are on the same side as straight women who hate men so much they CHOSE to become lesbians! You are on the side of a community that has solely defined their identities on not liking men which leads to exclusionary behavior towards bisexuals and trans women!

This isn't the hill you want to die on!

[sophieinwonderland]

Saying "you're white so therefore you can't have an opinion on transrace (only real POC can)" is disturbingly similar to "you like men so you can't have an opinion on bi lesbians (only real lesbians can)". Like sure, if you claim that only "real" people of color are allowed to have an opinion and define "real" people of color as inherently excluding transrace, then you've created a circular argument of "white transrace people can't defend transrace identities because they're white and therefore can't be transrace and are therefore white and therefore can't defend transrace".

And then they just ignore every POC who disagrees with them, which sure sounds racist to me! (Especially when in every transx community I've been in, the majority of transrace people have been bodily POC)

Never mind too that these are just word for word terf arguments. "Men white people invading women's people of color's spaces because of misogyny racism because sex race is biological and only real women people of color can decide what a woman POC is" and then they're like "It's different!" and you're like "how" and they're like "because it's racist!!" and you're like "okay how" and they're like "because it just is! it's different because I say so as a person of color!!" and then they proceed to ignore people of color saying it's okay.

I also don't think marginalization allows you any significant say whatsoever on different related marginalized identities. Just like transfems are not the authorities on transmasc experiences and disordered/traumagenic systems are not the authorities on nondisordered/endogenic plurality, being cisID for a given marginalized identity doesn't actually give you the right to speak on that transID.)

If it did, cis women would be authorities on all trans experiences and singlets would be authorities on all tulpa/created system experiences (not an exact equivalent, but close, and some tulpa/created systems do consider themselves transplural, which I think is valid).

It's just a clusterfuck all the way down. Also as a disabled person, I strongly suspect that transabled identities in particular could be observed neurologically just like BIID can. I'm leery of doing that for nonmedical identities because of biological essentialism (though I recognize the potential scientific merit in it regardless). Not only that, but I wanna say: why is it ableist to want to be an identity that's not inherently a bad thing?

Why is it ableist to want to have a disability, even one that includes suffering as part of the experience, when it's not bad to BE disabled when you DON'T consent to it? Is being disabled only acceptable to these people because disabled people don't have the option of being abled? Is being abled a better, more desirable state? If disability pride only allowed because you can't help not being abled? Because THAT sounds horribly ableist.

For that matter, this applies to all transx identities!

I have quite literally dozens of disabilities ranging from physical to neurological, just counting overarching diagnoses alone. Counting individual things I struggle with or can't do, it would be hundreds. I WANT to have the disabilities I already have. I'd want most of them if I DIDN'T have them because they are central to who I am and the causal relationship there goes both ways.

I'm literally totally fine with people wanting my disabilities, too. Wanna be autistic? Oh cool, autism can be difficult but it's dear to me in a lot of ways too. Wanna experience psychosis? Hell yeah, I love being psychotic and honestly the only part I struggle much with is the negative symptoms that come with schizophrenia specifically (plus you can literally induce psychosis with drugs, and not always the scarybad kind either). Want to have a histamine disorder? I'll offer mine to you like I keep offering my boobs to my transfem partner, I don't like experiencing it but more power to ya. Want chronic pain? Considering I wouldn't actually get rid of mine because I literally like experiencing pain, I'm right there with you. Want IBS? I mean I don't get it, but sure!

(And yeah "want" vs "feels like they innately have but the body doesn't match" is an imperfect distinction, I'm using want as in "wants the body to align with internal identity" in the same way that trans people sometimes "want" to transition".)

Idk, I've just never seen an argument against transx identities that wasn't recycled terf rhetoric that "is different because it is and I say so!" or actively bigoted itself. The more arguments I heard against transID stuff, the more I was convinced people are just bigoted against a minority group they don't understand because they think their own discomfort is a good indicator of morality.

And ngl! The first time I was referred to as cisx for some of my marginalized identities, I had a visceral emotional reaction! I thought people were essentially saying I had privilege over and oppressed transx people of that identity, because that's how it works with gender.

But... it's not even always that simple with gender (example: white middle class trans woman vs black working class cis man) and also... that's an assumption *I* made and is utterly untrue. It's closer to how trans men can't oppress and don't have privilege over trans women: cis men oppress cis women, but all trans people are marginalized.

Once I worked through that, I was able to see that transx people were some of the most supportive, inclusive, safe people I'd ever met. I literally feel safer in transx spaces about my cisx marginalized identities than I do in many cisx spaces for those identities. I feel safer as a queer plural disabled person in transx spaces than I do in queer, plural, and disabled spaces! In part because they do not allow any form of bigotry (unlike say, ableist queer spaces or pluralmisic disabled spaces) but mostly just because... they're unconditionally accepting of identity and only judge people based on whether or not their actions are bigoted.

I wish we had more spaces that recognized that any innate and honest identity (so not like "haha attack helicopter gender" as a joke that someone doesn't actually ID as) is good faith and is not harmful, because identities are thought-based and thoughtcrimes aren't real. Idk.

Thank you for adding your experiences.

My own views on transIDs are complicated and I don't agree with everything here, but I am glad you found a community you feel safe in. I do agree that a lot of the anti-transX talking points sound exactly like TERF talking points, and in the case of anti-trace arguments, often the way they try to claim it's different is appealing to racial realism.

And like you, I strongly suspect that mental transability is something that could be observable in the brain like BIID.

There are a couple thing you mention that I really want to talk about as they've bothered me for a while with this whole debate.

Saying "you're white so therefore you can't have an opinion on transrace (only real POC can)" is disturbingly similar to "you like men so you can't have an opinion on bi lesbians (only real lesbians can)"

It's not even just not having an opinion. It's about having the wrong opinion. I've personally gotten a ton of hate for saying I'm largely neutral on the subject. I don't identify by transIDs, but have talked to people in the community and believe they're good faith identities.

In contrast, people wouldn't say "you can't have an opinion" if your opinion agrees with them.

And then they just ignore every POC who disagrees with them, which sure sounds racist to me! (Especially when in every transx community I've been in, the majority of transrace people have been bodily POC)

And this is a HUGE issue I have with the anti-transX side.

There's a narrative being spread that Trace individuals are largely white people "pretending" to be PoC.

What I'm largely observing from the TransX community is the opposite. Many of the people who sent asks to me were POC-bodied. There was also a poll of the Trace community showing that a lot of them felt that their identities were a result of racial trauma, or didn't know if it was related to racial trauma (still suggesting they had a history of it.)

To me, the anti-trace rhetoric comes across as lateral aggression being disguised as anti-racism.

You have a group of mostly PoC who are branding another group of mostly PoC-bodied individuals as racists for wanting the right to choose their own identities instead of being defined by their ancestry or skin color.

What's worse though is that they're actively set on bringing white people into the Trace conflict. It's incredibly common to see white people with transX identities in their DNIs, all in the name of being anti-racist... or at least appearing anti-racist in their social circles.

My assessment... as someone who I'll admit is an outside observer to both communities... is that the anti-trace side has been leveraging the concept of white guilt to get white people to join their side in ostracizing and abusing a group made up mostly of PoC-bodied individuals.

Which just seems... super messed up to me...

[a-faggot-with-opinions]

i just think its annoying that in these kind of internet spaces where people are constantly shitting on transmascs, they aren't "allowed" to do the same shit transfems are. i say this AS A TRANSFEM. like why is it more okay for trans women to still identify as gay (for men) but trans men being lesbians is this huge point of discourse in the trans community? why is it that trans women staying on grindr are okay, but trans men on lesbian hookup apps are "invading womens spaces"? why is it okay make fun of transmascs calling themselves transfags, but we feel fine calling ourselves girlfags or transdykes?

the way these trans ppl treat transmascs has to be so fucking isolating for them. theyre made fun of if they like men or women, cis or trans. if you like CIS men, they must not actually see you as a man and youre stupid for staying with them, if you like TRANS men, then youre a "pussy4pussy" transmisogyist. if you like CIS women, youre either invading womens spaces or youre a crypto t/erf, if you like TRANS women, youre just a creepy girldick obsessed chaser.

i could go on and on. up until recently, i let a lot of my mutuals' baeddelisms slide, even though i was very discomforted by it, but i just cant anymore. like, this is basic human decency!! treat others how you want to be treated and all that, right? so why is it that we label transmascs transmisogyistic for doing basically nothing, while a lot of us treat them like shit?

i feel like a lot of the internet sees transfems and free of criticism, and if you DO criticize one of us, youre just a transmisogyist. and vice-versa, its always okay and "funny" to criticize and simply hate transmascs. ugh, sorry to ramble, its just very frustrating to see. anyways i love ur blog and will aways stand in solidarity with my transmasc brothers ❤️

Thank you so much for this anon! It's nice to see that there are transfems who understand that transmascs are treated like shit instead of going on about TME privilege.

[starry-eyed-fag]

Would unironically love to see a writeup about the anti-rpf movement and how it connects to ableism. Homophobia I can kind of see, people seem to take way more issue with m/m rpf than of f/m from what i've seen, especially in classic rock. But ableism? (Genuine curiosity btw! )

-a curious rpf lover

so i normally don't get into shipcourse, but this is something I actually feel passionate about. RPF writers and readers are attacked for a lot of reasons, some of them fair and a matter of personal opinion, a lot of them very obviously bigoted. (also I will be reblogging this on my discourse blog @political-faggotry, if you want to send me asks in response to this post send them there!)

People take way more issue with m/m and f/f RPF than m/f RPF, as you said. This is because fanfiction and other forms of "shitty literature" have always been associated with queer people. This has been the case since at least the 1960s, when queer authors were forced to write shitty tragic stories that can't really be classified as love stories in order to have their stories told at all. A lot of queer-coded media was like this too, and cishet people caught on.

My informed opinion is that modern-day RPF was created because of an intersection of neurodivergence and queerness. Basically, ND queer people who felt out of place in society came together and formed fandoms around bands, actors, celebs, etc. Due to the increasing popularity of fanfiction in the 2000s, it was only natural that this would eventually bleed into fandoms of bands.

I think that the reason that M/M RPF fic was/is so popular is because of the trans eggs in fandom that 1) liked to project onto male characters and 2) viewed women as competition. Back when I was an egg, this was definitely what drew me to RPF. I did not like reading about Pete Wentz with his actual girlfriend, or with some female OC, I liked reading about him with a man I could project onto and who didn't feel like competition.

Anti-RPF "movements" during the 2000s was very obviously homophobic, misogynistic, and transphobic. Readers & writers would regularly get called homophobic slurs, get misogynist and transandrophobic comments, and otherwise be attacked for being queer and/or perceived female.

In the late 2010s was when the rise of calling things "problematic" because cringe culture died truly happened. Instead of saying "I don't like what you write because you're a faggot", people would say "actually you're problematic for writing that". It was literally the same shit we would get told in the 2000s, replacing words like "faggot" and the r-slur with "problematic".

I'm not saying that all people who call media problematic are like this - far from it. I call some media problematic too! However, media perceived as queer was targeted with accusations of being problematic far more than media without queerness attached, and many people who were already homophobic used this as an excuse to be homophobic while still being seen as "progressive".

I have an entire other rant about how non-MLM "progressives" can be and are homophobic sometimes, but I don't really have the spoons to write all that out right now - I will do it later though!

It would be misleading of me to not also talk about how TEHMs played a big part in the homophobia and transphobia that was directed at the (queer) RPF community. For those unaware, TEHM stands for Trans Exclusionary Homosexual Male. They are basically the TERF lesbians of the MLM gay community. They believe that gay trans men, especially nonbinary trans men and autistic trans men, are straight female fetishizers trying to invade the gay community.

TEHMs often come after transmasculine fans of yaoi anime, queer fanfiction, and yes, RPF. TEHMs will claim that the fact that transmasculine people tend to be in fandoms with a lot of M/M ships somehow "proves" that we are just fetishizing. So. Fucking. Many. Of the most common anti-RPF arguments use TEHM talking points, either intentionally or unintentionally.

TEHMs make use of dogwhistles to spread their messages even to people who are often trans-inclusionary. Claims of fetishizing MLM relationships are more often than not TEHM dogwhistles. A very common claim that I see among people who are VERY anti-RPF (not as in "i do not think RPF is good, but i don't really care all that much", but more as in "if you have ever read RPF in your life you should die") is that RPF is basically sexual assault.

Why would you accuse an entire fandom of young, queer, transmasculine people of sexually assaulting people who are usually 20+ years older than them? This is TEHM rhetoric.

I also want to touch on the ableism a little. Many RPF writers are neurodivergent, as one might expect. The majority of the ones I've interacted with are. The internet loves to get mad at neurodivergent people for having "problematic" interests, and with RPF it is no different.

We are singled out and our interests are seen as inherently disordered, immoral, etc. Those who are very strongly against RPF either do not know this, or they know this and are fine with harassing neurodivergent people over what amounts to a non-issue.

Now, that's the end of my point, but I have a few things to clarify. I am not trying to say that if you personally don't like RPF that you are actually transphobic, homophobic, and/or ableist. You are allowed to dislike anything for any reason and I don't care. My problem is with the people who hate RPF so much that they believe that reading it is a moral failing, or that it is okay to harass those that like it.

It is incredibly important to have boundaries writing RPF, which means not doing it anywhere that it is likely the people you are writing about will see. It is also okay to believe that RPF is inherently breaking a boundary; I disagree, but I see where your (not at anon) opinion is coming from and I respect it. It is not at all bigoted to dislike a thing for those reasons, as they are valid reasons to dislike something.

There is also a larger discussion to be had about the commodification of humans themselves in the music industry, but that is beyond the scope of this post.

I really only have a problem with the people who believe that it is a moral failing, or literal sexual assault, to be in a mostly harmless community that has been historically associated with queerness. That is all.

Please don't bring proship/anti discourse to this post.