#it's such a common queer experience and yet... it gets no love or acknowledgement here | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

crystal-in-nagasaki · 3 months

Text

hello, i'm gay: kyushu pride and existing in japan as a queer person

Hi there. This might be the first time some of you hear this, but I'm a lesbian. I first realized I liked girls in high school, and then realized I didn't like boys in college. It was quite a journey, but I finally feel right. But anyway, since this is a blog about Japan, the reason I'm mentioning my queerness is because I want to share a bit about LGBT culture in Japan from my experience, and maybe a bit about how I navigated dating and met my partner here.

*As a note to those not in the community: the label "queer" used to be a bigoted slur against LGBT people, but now is used by LGBT as an umbrella term, because the acronym LGBTQIA+ is getting long and saying queer to refer to all of it is just easier. So when I refer to myself and others as "queer," I just mean I'm a member of the LGBT community, and there's no negative connotation attached.

Although Japan is a first-world country with many of the same conveniences of modern life as the US, their culture surrounding LGBT issues is lacking to say the least. LGBT people in Japan definitely exist and have carved out their own spaces in Japan's larger cities, but gay men and lesbians do not have the federal legal right to marry, and there are not many protections in place for LGBT people to have medical care and be safe from discrimination in the workplace, housing, etc. Because of the lack of severe religious affiliation like in the US and other countries, average Japanese people overall aren't hostile to LGBT people, but just don't really acknowledge them or know what to do with them.

As a collectivist society, Japanese people are expected to "fit in," meaning queer people often stay closeted and don't come out to people outside their inner social circles, or sometimes even at all. And with traditional family structures still at the forefront of Japanese society, many people are often pressured by their family to be in a heterosexual marriage and have children. The laws and society uphold a heterosexual lifestyle, so it's difficult for queer people to live an open and happy life.

I only went on one date with a Japanese woman during my time in Japan, whom I met on a Japanese lesbian dating app. Japanese people on any dating apps, not just LGBT ones, are generally more private and won't post pictures of their face, so you often need to meet them in person to really get to know them. I think Japanese LGBT people are open to dating foreigners, but the language and culture barrier can get in the way, so I didn't have a lot of luck meeting many Japanese women.

The one woman I went on a date with had studied abroad and had very good English, so I think that's why we made it to a first date. We only had one date, which was pleasant, but I don't think we had much in common. I was also surprised when the conversation on our date turned to politics, and my date told me that she wasn't interested in politics or voting at all. Many young people in the US are politically active, especially those in minority groups like LGBT people, so I was surprised that she was apathetic to politics in a country where she was denied certain basic rights based on her identity. But politics in Japan are even more of a rigged nepotistic mess than the US, so I guess many young Japanese people don't feel confident in their ability to effect any kind of meaningful change on legislation.

I also learned from my date that she wasn't out to her family yet, and her family was pressuring her to find a husband and start a family. Since Japan is still pretty traditional as far as nuclear family values, I really felt for her and the struggle she must have been dealing with to be with someone she loves but also live up to her family's traditional expectations. We never met again after this date, but sometimes I still wonder about her and whether she's been able to live a happy and open life.

Well, that was a little sad, so let's change gears and talk about Pride. The biggest Pride event of the year in Japan is Tokyo Pride, which usually happens in April. I've never attended Tokyo Pride, but I've attended Fukuoka Pride for the past two years, and it was really fun. As far as I can tell, Fukuoka Pride is definitely the largest and most publicized, if not the only, LGBT event in all of Kyushu. Many people come from not only all over Kyushu, but from all over Japan to attend.

The first year I attended Pride (2022), I went with a group of other foreigners. We visited a small lesbian bar the night before and found it packed with many LGBT women, non-binary people, and transgender men. Another interesting thing I learned about Japanese LGBT culture is that many lesbian spaces also include trans men. I think the idea is to create a space for AFAB (assigned female at birth) people who are attracted to each other, which is common. I do wonder if it creates a problem in which cis lesbians may consider trans men to just be butch women instead of real men, but since I don't have much experience in these spaces, I don't want to spread around uninformed opinions. It seems like transgender women are also allowed into lesbian spaces, but sometimes only if they "pass," which can also potentially be problematic. My partner, who is transgender, was denied from joining a lesbian event because she was told she didn't pass well enough. Of course, this kind of discrimination within the LGBT community exists in the US too and is not particular to just Japan.

Anyway, I got to meet various people at the lesbian bar that night, including one that lived in Tokyo and offered to show me around Tokyo's gay district, Shinjuku Ni-Chome next time I was in town. Just recently, I was finally able to get to Tokyo and take her up on her offer, which I'll share about later in this post.

We also celebrated Pride weekend by visiting Anmitsu-hime, the city's famous drag show. Many drag shows in the US that I've been to are in bars or restaurants, but this drag show is solely a production on a stage in front of a seated audience. The performers wear elaborate costumes which they change throughout the show. They perform comedy skits as well as lip-sync, and they sometimes actually sing too. Before the show starts, they do a bit of crowd work asking where people are from and about their jobs, hobbies, etc. and at some point in the show, they pull an audience member on stage to be a part of a comedy skit. It's incredibly funny, well-designed, and entertaining. They change their shows several times throughout the year, so you can keep going back for new skits and musical performances. I highly recommend it to any Fukuoka travelers!

Pride itself was much the same both of the years I went. There were various stalls set up in a large park. Some stalls had information like healthcare clinics and LGBT resources. Other stalls were general LGBT corporate pandering where big companies show their support and give out free pens and flags with their logos on them. And there were also stalls selling merchandise, like pride-themed goods, accessories, and sex toys.

At my second year of Pride, they also had many stalls from international LGBT organizations like Taiwan and Thailand. Thailand's stand had several Thai transgender women, called "ladyboys" by LGBT Thai people, who came to share Thai LGBT culture. Thailand is one of the more progressive LGBT countries in Asia, so it was nice to see, and the Thai women were really beautiful.

They also had a stage where performances were held throughout the day and emceed by local drag queens. They invited many LGBT music artists to perform, as well as dance groups, drag queens, choirs, and even a cheerleading group. Not all of the performers were part of the LGBT community, but performed songs about LGBT stories and themes of acceptance, which I think was important for allies attending the event to see. Since the event was also free and held in a public park, I think it's possible many random people got curious and wandered in, and hopefully became a little more aware of and empathetic to LGBT people.

Some other features of Pride included a board with letters from various local and international government offices and embassies pledging their dedication to uplifting and protecting LGBT people, which meant a lot to see. People could then write sticky notes and stick them on the letters saying thank you or giving comments to their representatives.

Another feature was a large message board that people could sign with their thoughts about anything related to being or supporting LGBT people. Many people shared stories, expressed gratitude, or gave words of support. My first year I wrote that I was thankful for my friends' and family's support, and the second year when I came with my partner, I wrote that I was happy I could proudly hold my girlfriend's hand in public. My girlfriend wrote that she's happy to finally live as her authentic self and she's grateful to find someone that loves her for who she is <3

At work, I have tried for the last three years to increase LGBT visibility by including Pride sections on the English board in my junior high school every June for Pride month. The first year I displayed a map which showed which countries had legalized gay marriage (and that Japan was not one of them.) I also showed them that there is an openly gay congressperson in the Japanese National Diet. The next year I tried to break down some LGBT identities to students and encouraged them to not make assumptions about people being straight. I also recommended one of my favorite manga, Shimanami Tasogare, which explores LGBT issues in a sympathetic and easy to understand way.

Finally, this year I put up a very brief section about LGBT history, stating that many ancient cultures were accepting of same sex relationships and had gender identities outside of the binary. I also decided to come out to them publicly, which I hadn't really done before. I was really scared to put this up on the board, but I'm really proud of myself for doing it, and hope I can set an example for my closeted students to be brave.

I want so badly to be a good example for my students. If they don't know any LGBT people in real life, I want to be that person for them, and also be visible for any closeted students to know that they're not alone. But it's very scary to open yourself up to others' scrutiny. I wasn't out to anyone at any of my schools before this year. I decided this year to make it my goal to come out to my students before I leave, if not for me then for them. Only in the last month or two, I've started telling my junior high school students that I have a girlfriend. I'm trying to be brave and give them the exposure that they need to see people different (or alike) to them, which I needed as a kid too.

Next let's change gears and talk about Tokyo's gay district, Shinjuku Ni-chome. Finally after living in Japan for over two years, I was able to visit in March of this year. I met up with the friend I had met at the lesbian bar in Fukuoka, whose name is Lenna. She was raised partially in Japan and partially in Australia, so she can speak English and Japanese fluently. She has a Japanese partner that she's been with for many years, and they have a dog together in Tokyo.

Lenna showed me around the district and brought me to a couple of bars to chat with some queer people living in Tokyo. Before heading to Ni-Chome, we went to an American-themed cafe in Jiyugaoka owned by a queer woman. The food was delicious and the owner was so sweet. I ordered an "LGBT," a BLT with guacamole, but told her to hold the G, both because I don't like men and because I get sick when I eat avocados, hahaha. So basically it was just a normal BLT with a funny gay implication. But anyway, it was so nice to be in a familiar environment with people like me, eating delicious American food.

Next we finally headed to Shinjuku Ni-chome. The first thing I noticed about Ni-chome that surprised and delighted me was just how open everything was. In Fukuoka and even Sasebo, LGBT bars are not openly advertised, and you have to do some digging or know the right people to be able to find them. But in Ni-chome, there were signs with rainbows and buff half-naked men on them, queer people in makeup and extravagant outfits in the street, couples holding hands, signs for HIV testing, adult sex and video stores, and even a big rainbow torii gate outside one bar. It was quite a shock to see a place like that in Japan, and it made me really happy and hopeful for the future of Japan's LGBT community.

Lenna told me that Ni-chome has 200-300 bars, most of them just very small rooms that consist of only bar seating. She took me to two bars, both of which were fairly small. The first one was a Mexican themed bar, which served authentic Mexican food as well as Mexican beer, tequila, and cocktails. We chatted with some of the workers there. Two of the bartenders were lesbians. The older of the two was the partner of the owner of the bar, who usually makes the food. Being in a space where so many queer women could openly talk about their partners together made my heart all warm and mushy.

Next we went to the bar next door, which was considered a bar for transgender women, and my partner joined us. There is still a fuzzy line in the Japanese LGBT community between men who wear drag and transgender women, so it was unclear whether the bartenders were women or just gay men in drag. But they were very warm and kind, and they were happy to take my partner under their wing and answer her questions about transgender issues and presenting as a woman in Japan. There was also a transgender woman sitting at the bar with us, and it was nice to have that visibility and know that these people exist in Japan and have a space to feel happy and comfortable.

Anyway, lastly, let's talk a little about my beautiful partner, Frankie. We first met online and found that we had mutual friends in Kyushu in 2023. We even realized that we crossed paths at Pride in 2022 several times without actually meeting each other. We talked online for a bit and then met as friends for the first time last summer.

After our first meeting, we realized our feelings for each other and had several dates before becoming an official couple.

Frankie lives in Kumamoto, which is pretty far away from me, but we still see each other almost every weekend. We both drive about an hour to our respective ferry ports and one of us rides the ferry over and drives back home with the other. As you can imagine, it's time consuming and expensive, but we're just happy to see each other. This month we celebrated 9 months together, and we are making plans to live together in the US when we return later this year. She's so kind, smart, loving, beautiful, and talented, and I'm so grateful to have her in my life.

Well, this post was veryyyyyyyy long, but it's something I've been wanting to discuss for a while on my blog, and I wanted to cover as much about the LGBT experience here as I could. Being part of the LGBT community, the issue of LGBT life in Japan is very important to me, and there is still a long way to go before my LGBT students can live openly and freely. Although I'm leaving Japan soon, I hope I can become a role model for my students while I'm still here, one that stands proudly and declares that I am allowed to love and be loved in the way I deserve.

Thanks for reading <3

1 note · View note

celestial-sapphicss · 3 years

Note

"bad buddy was not being realistic if it was then i don't think that wai would be left like that and also homophobia doesn't exist here they should have made the parents apologise" I SWEAR wai outing them and not regretting is legit the same as people going after ohm and stalking his "girlfriend" trying to out it like it did follow reality that's why wai got out also the fact that people have problem with this side of a story bb showed is concerning like as if this doesn't deserve representation

hi anon, I'm sorry I'm late, been busy with college!

okay so a lot is happening here I'll break it down and try to talk about it.

there's no need to keep saying that being outed fucking sucks. the society puts so much emphasis on coming out, as if non-queer people are entitled to know this deeply private information about queer people just because we're different. although coming out can be liberating, it does come with a lot of terms and conditions, and it can lead up to be a terrifying experience even if you're in a non-homophobic environment.

that's why wai outing pran sucks A LOT. and i get it , that some people do indeed get away with outing people, and again it was very true to pran's character to go and apologise when he wasn't the one at fault

BUT what bugs me about it is while it IS a realistic depiction in some cases (trust me I've been there), and there are infact people who do not feel any remorse upon outing someone, yet there was not a single acknowledgement of the fact that wai outing pran (be it his sexuality OR his relationship) was an act of violence which hurt pran

now, I'm not saying there should've been a scene of confrontation between the two (although I'd have loved it), cause it wasn’t a show about resolving conflicts. it was a show about pat & pran.

BUT there wasn't even a discussion about it? even just a discussion between pat & pran about the same and how they felt about it could've been enough in conveying that while what wai did was wrong and he hurt pran, pran being who he is doesn't want to ruin their friendship and has different priorities

because that's what they did with their parents. while there was absolutely no apology from the parents (because well, asian parents), yet time and again the show made a point to convey the message that what they did was wrong and that they hurt their children. which made them making there relationship an open-secret justified (more about it here & in the notes of this post)

and yes you're right, this side of being queer does deserve representation. but the fact that there wasn't even a single acknowledgement of pain caused by wai, even indirectly, is something that still bugs me. because whatever queer kids do to deal with when they're outed against their will, one thing is common that we do feel pain, isn't it?

#also yes ohm's private life being intruded sucks #like why??????? you watch a show like this and still go on spreading hate #some people i SWEAR #vi's inbox #bad buddy

8 notes · View notes

star-anise · 4 years

Text

An ask I got recently:

hi so i’m a transmed and i’m not sure if you’ll answer this because of that but i saw your post about transmedicalism and was wondering if you could expand on that? you seem like a genuinely kind and judgement-free person, thank you darling x

My response:

Heh, you call me “judgement-free” and ask for my opinion on a topic I’ve formed a lot of judgments about… I get it though, I’m not into attacking people for what they believe so much as providing FACTS. As a cis queer, my insight into transmedicalism isn’t really about the innate experience of trans-ness so much as using my education and professional experience to talk about social science research, diagnostic systems, and public health policy.

This ended up really long, so the tl;dr is, I think transmedicalism as I understand it:

Misunderstands why and how the DSM’s Gender Dysphoria diagnosis was written,

Treats the medical establishment with a level of trust and credibility it doesn’t deserve, at a time when LGBT+ people, especially trans people, need to be informed and vigilant critics of it, and

Approaches the problem of limited resources in an ass-backwards way that I think will end up hurting the trans community in the long run.

TW: Transphobia; homophobia; suicide; institutionalization; torture; electroshock therapy; child abuse; incidental mentions of pedophilia.

So first off I’m guessing you mean this post, about not trusting the medical establishment to tell you who you are? That’s what I’m trying to elaborate on here.

I have to admit, when you say “I’m a transmedicalist” that tells me very little about you, because on Tumblr the term seems to encompass a dizzying array of perspectives. Some transmedicalists believe in what seems to me the oldschool version of “The only TRUE trans people suffer agonizing dysphoria that can only be fixed with surgery and hormones, everyone else is an evil pretender stealing resources and can FUCK RIGHT OFF” and others are like, um… “I have total love and respect for nonbinary and nondysphoric trans people! I qualify for a DSM diagnosis of dysphoria but that doesn’t make me inherently better or more trans than anyone else.”

Which is very confusing to me because according to everything I’ve learned, the latter opinion is not transmedicalism. It’s just… a view of transness that acknowledges current diagnostic labels and scientific research. It’s what most people who support trans rights and do not identify as transmedicalists believe. But I kind of get the impression that Tumblr transmedicalism has expanded well past its original mandate, to the point that if a lot of “transmedicalists” saw the movement’s original positions they’d go “Whoa that’s way too strict and doesn’t help our community, I want nothing to do with it.”.

Okay so. Elaborating on the stuff I can comment on.

1. DSM what?

The American Psychiatric Association publishes a big thick book called The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, called the DSM for short. This is the “Bible of psychiatry”, North America’s definitive listing of mental disorders and conditions. It receives significant revision and updates roughly every 10-15 years; it was last updated in 2013, meaning it will likely get updated sometime between 2023 and 2028.

The DSM lists hundreds of “codes”, each of which indicates a specific kind of mental disorder. For example, 296.23 is “Major depressive disorder, Single episode, Severe,” and 300.02 is “Generalized anxiety disorder.” These codes have information on how common the condition is, how it’s diagnosed, and what kind of treatment is appropriate for it.

Diagnostic codes are the key to health professionals getting paid. If there isn’t a code for it, we can’t get paid for it, and therefore we have very few resources to treat it with. The people who actually pay for healthcare–usually insurance companies or government agencies–decide how much they will pay for each code item to be treated. They’ll pay for, say, three sessions of group therapy for mild depression (296.21), or they’ll pay for more expensive private therapy if it’s moderate (296.22); they’ll pay for the cheap kind of drug if you have severe depression (296.23), but to get the more expensive drug, you need to have depression with psychotic features (296.24).

Healthcare companies, especially in the USA where the system is very very broken and the DSM is written, are cheap bastards. If they can find an excuse not to fund some treatment, they’ll use it. “We think this person who lost their job and can’t get off the couch should pay this $1000 bill for therapy,” they’ll say. “After all, they were diagnosed as code 296.21, and then saw a private therapist for five sessions, when we only allow three sessions of group therapy, and you’re saying they haven’t had enough treatment yet?”

A lot of the advocacy work mental health professionals do is trying to get the big funding bodies to pay us adequately for the work we do. (This is a much easier process in countries with single-payer healthcare, where this negotiation only needs to be done with a single entity. In the USA, it needs to be done with every single health insurance company in existence, as well as the government, sometimes differently in every single state, and then again on a case-by-case basis as well.) Healthcare providers have to argue that three sessions of group therapy isn’t enough, that Medicaid needs to pay therapists more per hour than it costs those therapists to rent a room to practice in, or else therapists would lose money by seeing Medicaid clients. DSM codes exist a tiny bit to let us communicate with each other about the people we treat, and a huge amount to let us get paid. The fact that their existence lets people make sense of their own experiences and find a community with people who share common experiences and interests with them is a very minor side benefit the DSM’s authors really don’t keep in mind when they update and revise different diagnoses.

So when it comes to convincing insurance companies to pay for treatment, humanitarian reasons like “they’ll be very unhappy without it” tend not to work. The best argument we have for them paying for psychological treatment is that it’s economical: that if they don’t pay for it now, they’ll have to pay even more later. If they refuse to pay, let’s say, $2000 to treat mild depression when someone loses their job, and either refuse treatment or stick the person with the bill, then that person’s life might spiral out of control–they might, let’s say, run low on money, get evicted from their apartment, develop severe depression, attempt suicide, and end up in hospital needing to be medically resuscitated and then put in an inpatient psych ward for a month. The insurance company then faces the prospect of having to pay, let’s say, $100,000 for all that treatment. At which point somebody clever goes, “Huh, so it would have been cheaper to just… pay the original $2000 instead so they could bounce back, get a new job, and not need any of this treatment later.”

Trans healthcare can be kind of expensive, since it often involves counselling, years of hormone therapy, medical garments, and multiple surgeries. Health insurance companies hate paying for anything, and have traditionally wanted not to cover any of this. “This is ridiculous!” they said. “These are elective cosmetic treatments, it’s not like they’re dying of cancer, these people can pay the same rate for breast enhancements or testosterone injections as anyone else.”

So when the APA Task Force on Gender Identity Disorder (a task force comprised, as far as I can tell, entirely of cis people) sat down to plan for the 2013 update of the DSM, one of their biggest goals was: Treatment recommendations. Create a diagnosis which they could effectively use to advocate that insurance companies fund gender transition. Like when you go back and read the documents from their meetings in 2008 and 2011, their big thing is “create a diagnosis that can be used to form treatment recommendations.” So that’s what they did; in 2013 they made the GD diagnosis, and in 2014 the Affordable Care Act required insurers to provide treatment for it.

A lot of trans people weren’t happy with the DSM task force’s decisions, such as the choice to keep “Transvestic Fetishism,” which is basically the autogynephilia theory, and just rename it “Transvestic Disorder”. The creation of the Gender Dysphoria diagnosis, basically, was designed to force the preventive care argument. They didn’t think they could win on trans healthcare being a necessity because healthcare is a human right, so they went with: Trans people have a very high suicide rate, and one way to bring it down is to help them transition. One of the major predictors of suicidality is dysphoria. The more dysphoric someone is, the more likely they are to attempt suicide (source). Therefore, health insurers should fund treatment for gender dysphoria because it was cheaper than paying for emergency room admissions and inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations.

I have spoken to trans scientists about what research exists, and my understanding is: The dysphoria/no dysphoria split is not actually validated in the science. That is, when you research trans people, there is not some huge gaping difference between the experiences, or brains, of people With Dysphoria, and people Without Dysphoria. Mostly, scientists haven’t even thought it was an important distinction to study. The diagnosis wasn’t reflecting a strong theme in the research about trans experiences; that research showed that trans people with all levels of dysphoria were helped with medical transition. The biggest difference is just that dysphoria is a stronger risk factor for suicide. Experiencing transphobia is another strong risk factor, but that’s harder to measure in a doctor’s office, so dysphoria it was.

(I’ve seen some transmedicalists claim that dysphoria’s major feature is incongruence, not distress. And I’ll just say, uh… in psychology, “dysphoria” is the opposite of of “euphoria”, literally means “excessive pain”, and is used in many disorders to describe a deep-seated sense of distress and wrongness. As a mental health professional, I just can’t imagine most of my colleagues agreeing that something can be called “dysphoria” if the person doesn’t feel real distress about it. If you want a diagnosis that doesn’t demand dysphoria, you’d need Gender Incongruence in the upcoming version of the ICD-11, which is the primary diagnostic system used in Europe, published by the World Health Organization.)

2. Doctors are not magic

Medicine is a science, and science is a system of knowledge based on having an idea, testing it against reality, and revising that knowledge in light of what you learned. We’re learning and growing all the time.

I don’t know if this sounds painfully obvious or totally groundbreaking, but: Basically all medical research is done by people who don’t have the condition they’re writing about. Psychology has a strong historical bias against believing the personal testimonies of people with conditions that have been deemed mental disorders, so researchers who have experienced the disorder they’re writing about have often had to hide that fact, like Kay Redfield Jamison hiding that she had bipolar disorder until she became a world-renowned expert on it, or Marsha Linehan hiding that she had borderline personality disorder until she pioneered the treatment that could effectively cure it. Often, having a condition was seen as proof you couldn’t actually have a truthful and objective experience of it.

So what I’m trying to say is: The “gender dysphoria” diagnosis was written and debated, so far as I can tell, by entirely cis committee members. The vast majority of psychological and psychiatric research about LGBT+ people is written by cisgender heterosexual scientists. Most clinical and scientific writing has been outsider scientists looking at people they have enormous power over and making decisions about their basic existence with very little accountability.

And to show you how far we’ve come, I want to show you part of the DSM as it was from 1952 to 1973. It shows you just why so many older LGBT+ people find it deeply ironic that now the DSM is being held up as definitive of trans experience:

302 Sexual Deviation This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts not usually associated with coitus, or towards coitus performed under bizarre circumstances as in necrophilia, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and fetishism. Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them. This diagnosis is not appropriate for individuals who perform deviant sexual acts because normal sexual objects are not available to them.

302.0 Homosexuality 302.1 Fetishism 302.2 Pedophilia 302.2 Transvestitism […]

Yes, really. That is how psychiatry viewed us. At a time when research from other fields, like psychology and sociology, were showing that this view was completely unsupported by evidence, psychiatry thought LGBT+ people were fundamentally disordered, criminal, and incapable of prosocial behaviour.

My favourite retelling of the decades of activism it took LGBT+ people and allies to get the DSM to change is from a friend who did her master’s thesis on the topic, because she leaves in the clown suits and gay bars, which really shows how scientific and dignified the process was. The long story short is: It took over 20 years of lobbying by LGBT+ people who were sick and tired of being locked up in mental institutions and subjected to treatments like electroshock training, as well as by LGBT+ social scientists, clinicians, and psychiatrists, to get homosexuality declassified as a mental illness. And that was homosexuality; the push to change how trans people were listed in the DSM is very recent, as seen in the latest version listing “Transvestic Disorder”, a description very few trans people ever use for themselves.

Here are a few more examples of how people with a condition have had to take an active part in the science about them:

When HIV/AIDS appeared in the USA, the government didn’t care why drug addicts and gay people were dying mysteriously. Hospitals refused to treat people with this mysterious new disease. AIDS patients had to fight to get any funding put into what AIDS is, how it spreads, or how it could be treated; they also had to campaign to change the massive public prejudice against them, so they could be treated, housed, and allowed to live. Here’s an article on the activist tactics they used. If you want an intro to the fight (or at least, white peoples’ experience of it), you could look into the movies How to Survive a Plague, And the Band Played On, and The Normal Heart.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) is a little-understood disease that causes debilitating exhaustion. It’s found twice as often in women as men. Doctors understand very little about what it is or why it happens, and patients with CFS are often written off a lazy hypochondriacs who just don’t want to try hard. There are basically no known treatments. In 2011, a British study said that an effective treatment for CFS was “graded exercise”, a program where people did slowly increasing levels of physical activity. This flew in the face of what people with CFS knew to be true: That their disease caused them to get much worse after they exercised. That for them, being forced to do ever-increasing exercise was basically tantamount to torture, so it was very concerning that health authorities and insurance companies began requiring that they undergo graded exercise treatment (and parents with children with CFS had to put their children through this treatment, or lose custody for “medical neglect”). So they investigated the study, found that it was seriously flawed, got many health authorities to reverse their position on graded exercise, and have made strides into pointing researchers to looking into biological causes of their illness.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rare but debilitating disease that isn’t researched much, because it affects such a small portion of the population. The ALS community realized that if they wanted better treatment, they would need to raise the money for research themselves. In 2014 they organized a viral “ice bucket challenge” to get people to donate to their cause, and raised $115 million, enough to make significant advances in understanding ALS and getting closer to a cure.

A common treatment for Autism is Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), which is designed to encourage “desired” behaviours and discourage “undesired” ones. The problem is, the treatment targets behaviour an Autistic person’s parents and teachers consider desirable or undesirable, without consideration that some “undesired” behaviours (like stimming) are fundamental and necessary to the wellbeing of Autistic people. Furthermore, the treatment involves punishing Autistic children for failure to behave as expected–in traditional ABA, by witholding rewards or praise until they stop, or in more extreme cases, by subjecting them to literal electric shocks to punish them. (In that last case, they’ve been ordered to stop using the shock devices by August 31, 2020. That only took YEARS.) Autistic people have had to campaign loud and long to say that different treatment strategies should be researched and used, especially on Autistic children.

So I mean… I get that the medical model can provide an element of validation and social acceptance. It can feel really good to have people in white coats back you up and say you’re the real deal. But if you get in touch with most LGBT+ and transgender groups, they’d say that there’s still a lot of work to be done when it comes to researching trans issues and getting scientific and governmental authorities to recognize your rights to social acceptance and medical treatment.

Within a few years, the definition you’re resting on will turn to sand beneath your feet. The Great DSM Machine will begin whirring into life pretty soon and considering what revisions it has to make. You’ll have an opportunity to make your voice heard and to push for real change. So… do you want to be part of that process of pushing trans rights forward, or do you just want to feel loss because they’re changing your strict definition of who’s valid and who’s not?

3. Scarcity is not a law of physics

One of the major arguments I see transmedicalists push is that there’s only a limited number of surgeries or hormone prescriptions available, so it’s not okay for a non-dysphoric person to “steal” the resources that another trans person might need more. This makes sense in a limited kind of way; it’s a good way to operate if, say, you’re sharing a pizza for lunch and deciding whether to give the last slice to someone who’s hungry and hasn’t eaten, or someone who’s already full.

When you start to back up and look at really big and complex systems–basically anything as big, or bigger, than a school board or a hospital or a municipal government–it’s not a helpful lens anymore. Because the most important thing about social institutions is that they can change. We can make them change. And the most important factor in how much the world changes is how many people demand that it change.

I’ve talked about this before when it comes to homeless shelters, and how the absolute worst thing they can have are empty beds. I used to work in women’s shelters, which came about when second-wave feminists started seriously looking at the problem of domestic violence in the 1960s and 70s, It was an issue male-dominated governments and healthcare systems hadn’t taken seriously before, but feminists started heck and did research and staged demonstrations and basically demanded that organizations that worked for the “public benefit” reduce the number of women being killed by their husbands. Their research showed that the leading cause of death in those cases were when women tried to leave and their partners tried to kill them, so the most obvious solution was to give them someplace safe to go where their partners couldn’t find them. Therefore the solution became: Women’s shelters. When feminists committed to founding and running these shelters, local governments could be talked into giving them money to keep them running.

(Men’s rights activists, the misogynist kind, like to whine about “why aren’t there men’s shelters?” and the very simple answer is: Because you didn’t fight for them, you teatowels. Whether a movement gets resources and funding is hugely a reflection of how many people have said, “This needs resources and funding! Look, I’m writing a cheque! Everyone, throw money at this!” In other news, The BC Society for Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse does great work. People should throw money at them.)

When the system in power knows there are resources it wants and doesn’t have, it finds a way to make them appear. For example, in Canada, the government knows that it doesn’t have enough trained professionals living in its far North, where the population is scarce and not very many people want to live. Doctors and teachers would prefer to live in the southern cities. But because it’s committed to Northern schools and hospitals, they create incentives. For example, the government offers to pay off the student loans of teachers or health professionals who agree to work for a few years in Northern communities.

Part of why trans healthcare resources are so scarce is that for a long time, trans people were considered too small a part of the population to care about. Like, “Trans people exist, but we won’t have to deal with them.” Older estimates said 0.4% of the population was trans, which meant a city of 100,000 people would have 400 trans people. A single family doctor can have 2000 or 3000 clients, so the city could have maybe 1 or 2 doctors who really “got” trans issues, and all the trans people would tell each other to only go see those doctors because all the rest were assholes. And the cracks in the system didn’t really seem serious. A couple hundred dissatisfied people not getting the healthcare they needed? Meh! Hospital administrators had more to worry about!

But the trans population is growing. A recent poll of Generation Z said 2.6% of middle schoolers in Minnesota were some kind of trans. which is 2,600 per 100,000. That’s enough to make hospitals think that maybe the next endocrinologist or OB/GYN they hire should have some training in treating trans people. That’s enough to make a health authority think that maybe the state should open up a new gender confirmation surgery clinic, since demand is rising so much.

Or well, I mean. Hospitals have a lot on their minds. This might not occur to them as their top priority. They’d probably think of it a lot sooner if a bunch of those trans people sent them letters or took out a billboard or showed up by the dozens at a public meeting to say, “Hello, there are a fuckload of us. Budget accordingly. We want to see your projected numbers for the next five years.”

When you’re doing that kind of work, suddenly it hurts your cause to limit your number of concerned parties. Sure, limited focus groups or steering committees can have limited membership, but when you put their ideas into action, to protest something or lobby for political change, you need numbers. If you want to show that you’re a big and important group that systems should definitely pay attention to, you don’t just need every trans or GNC or NB person who’s got free time to devote to your campaign, you also need every cis ally who can pad out numbers or lick envelopes or hand out water bottles or slip you insider information about the agenda at the next board meeting. You need bodies, time, and money, and you get them best by being inclusive about who’s in your party. Heck, if it would benefit your cause to team up with the local breast cancer group because trans women and cis women who have had mastectomies both have an interest in asking a hospital to have a doctor on staff who knows how to put a set of tits together, then there are strong reasons to do it.

Basically: All the time any marginalized group spends fighting over scraps is generally time we could spend demanding that the people handing out the food give us another plate. If you don’t think you’re getting enough, the best answer isn’t to knock it out of somebody’s hands, but to get together to say, “HEY! WE’RE NOT GETTING ENOUGH!”

That kind of work is complicated and difficult! It’s definitely much harder than yelling at someone on Tumblr for not being trans enough. But if you do any level of getting involved with activist groups that fight for real systemic change, whether that’s following your local Pride Centre on Twitter or throwing $5 at a trans advocacy group or writing your elected representative about the need for more trans health resources, you’re pushing forward lasting change that will help everyone.

#staranise original #transmedicalism tw #transphobia tw #homophobia tw #my problems with sj let me show you them

349 notes · View notes

hellomynameisbisexual · 4 years

Text

Let’s talk about the B in LGBTQ. A recent CDC poll found that 5.5 percent of women and 2 percent of men aged 18-44 identify as bisexual, which is significantly higher than the percentage of women and men who identify as lesbian/gay (1.3 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively). Even many people who don’t identify as bi have swung both ways at least once: 17.4 percent of women and 6.3 percent of men age 18-44 surveyed have had some same-sex contact.

Yet we don’t hear all that much about bi rights. But bisexual people still face discrimination, often from unexpected sources. Here are just a few of them.

Mental Health Professionals

YouTube vlogger Connor Manning recounted an awful encounter with a therapist who told him that he isn’t really bisexual. Instead of offering him proper treatment, the therapist spent a half hour trying to convince him not to call himself bi.

About the incident, Connor says,

What if I was someone who was freshly questioning their sexuality? …For a lot of people, especially those seeking help for their mental health, these things are an issue and they’re confusing and scary. To have someone who’s supposed to be a resource I can trust, someone I can open up to, try and invalidate my identity was really deeply sad to me. I also talked to a few people about it after the fact and they told me that this is something that happens all the time, unfortunately.

Research confirms this. A 2007 study published by Columbia University Press found that more than a quarter of therapists assumed their bisexual clients needed therapy for their sexuality. About a sixth saw bisexuality as a symptom of mental illness. Seven percent of therapists in the study tried to convert their bisexual clients to heterosexuality; 4 percent tried to turn their bisexual clients gay or lesbian.

Unfortunately, the misconception that bisexuality isn’t a real, unique sexual identity is very common. It’s so common that bi rights activists have an expression for it: bi erasure. Bi erasure is pretty much what it sounds like: Insisting that bisexuality isn’t real and that bisexuals are “really” just confused straight or gay people.

Faith Cheltenham of BiNet USA says that bisexuality is often subsumed under ‘gay’, but in reality “being gay is as different from being straight as being bi is. It’s not being half straight, half gay… you’re going to have a completely different life cycle experience from your gay peers.”

A young bisexual person going through that unique life cycle might feel lonely and confused and seek a therapist for help. If that therapist just turns around and tries to suppress their sexuality, it’s devastating.

What’s especially alarming about this is the fact that bisexuals (especially bisexual women) suffer from mental health problems at a higher rate than the rest of the population. They need help more often, but they’re less likely to get it if they have to fight uphill just to have their sexuality acknowledged as real.

Immigration Officials

Since 1994, United States immigration policies have recognized persecution for LGBTQ status as grounds for asylum. However, it’s not always easy for bisexual people to gain asylum. In correspondence with Unicorn Booty, Apphia Kumar, a bi rights activist, wrote that Immigration officers aren’t properly trained to handle bisexual asylum seekers, and often don’t understand it. “They have the incorrect perception that bisexuality is a choice or can be hidden in the face of persecution or that our identities depend on the gender of our partners.”

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit denied a bisexual Jamaican man asylum on the grounds that the man wasn’t “really” bisexual. Why not? Because he was married to a woman, even though he had dated men before and had been repeatedly assaulted for having sex with men.

Claiming that someone isn’t “really” bisexual because they’re currently an opposite-sex relationship is like claiming that someone isn’t really bilingual because they only speak one language at a time. It’s a ridiculous attitude based on broken logic. But immigration officials, even well-meaning ones, reinforce this misconception. Via email, Kumar noted that immigration lawyers often don’t understand bisexuality or they don’t consider it strong enough for an asylum claim, so “to increase the chances of someone getting asylum, they advise the asylum seeker to apply as gay or lesbian. This in fact increases the trauma of invisibility and doesn’t allow us to be our true selves in the long run.”

Their Partners

Bisexual people face a higher rate of intimate partner violence than straight or gay people. According to a 2010 survey by the CDC, a staggering 61 percent of bisexual women are raped, physically abused and/or stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, compared to 44 percent of lesbians and 35 percent of heterosexual women.

Bisexual men face unusually high rates of domestic violence as well: The number is 37 percent of bisexual men, compared to 26 percent of gay men and 29 percent of heterosexual men. Interestingly, the majority of this violence is coming from an opposite-sex partner. Ninety percent of bisexual women report being abused only by a male partner, and 79 percent of bisexual men report being abused by female partners.

Why is the rate so high? LGBTQ-rights activists say it comes from cultural stereotypes that paint bisexual people as immoral and undependable. Queer activist Lola Davidson writes, “A big factor of violence towards bisexuals comes from the oversexualization of bisexuality in the media and pornography. Bisexuals are often portrayed as very promiscuous and morally-ambiguous, often cheating on their partners or threatening their identity in some way.”

Stephanie Farnsworth also believes that anti-bisexual domestic violence comes from insecurity and fear of infidelity. She writes, “Checking through messages, demanding that no alone time is spent with a person of any gender and isolating one from friends suddenly becomes the norm because bisexuality is still read as wanting to have sex with anyone and everyone even though this disregards the logic that no one would ever expect a heterosexual person to fancy everyone of a different gender to them.”

We can find an example in this in the allegedly abusive relationship between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard and the media’s trashy response to it. Gossip rags suggested that Depp’s violence stemmed from Heard’s bisexuality, that he was afraid she would cheat on him with a woman.

Sadly, when bisexuals are abused, they might not have anywhere to go for help. At a Bisexual Community Issues Roundtable at the White House, one bi survivor of intimate partner violence told a heartbreaking story about being rejected by a battered women’s shelter:

The shelter staff told me I didn’t belong there, that they only served women abused by male partners. They referred me to a new gay community anti-battering project. That group also turned me away, saying that I was bisexual, not gay, so they couldn’t help me. What I felt too angry and defeated to say back then was, “Why can’t services be designed with bisexuals in mind? If we design services sensitive to bisexuals, they end up being responsive to both heterosexual and gay people, too, don’t they?”

The Media

Unfortunately, the media does a lot to reinforce negative stereotypes about bisexuality.

On television and in film, bisexual characters are usually portrayed as schemers, manipulators, and hedonists. Depraved bisexuals are so common in fiction that they even have their own TV Tropes entry. Here are just a few well-known examples from the list of evil, unhinged, monstrous bisexual characters:

Obviously, it’s not inherently wrong to portray a bisexual character as a bad person. But it’s a problem when an overwhelming number of dramas associate bisexuality with evil.

That Depraved Bisexual trope mostly applies to male characters. Female bisexuality is often presented as a performance meant to titillate men, or a way for a woman to sow her wild oats before settling down and having a “real” relationship with a man. The Daily Beast writes:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to unpack the appeal of this falsified narrative of bisexuality. The concept of a bisexual or lesbian woman who needs to be “saved” from her own sexuality is essentially a revamping of the classic damsel in distress narrative, with the male character’s conquering masculinity cast in the role of hero. The character of the bisexual woman offers the potential for a killer combination of girl-on-girl action paired with the possibility of heterosexual redemption.

But it’s not all bad. We’ll always have Darryl, the goofy, paté-loving boss on Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.

Non-fiction isn’t much better than entertainment media. Bi erasure abounds here, as news publications and biographers have a hard time acknowledging that bisexuality even exists. Many real-life bisexuals, past and present, end up referred to as either straight or gay. When actress Amber Heard announced that she had a girlfriend at a GLAAD event in 2010, the press called her a lesbian.

When actress Anna Paquin discussed her marriage to actor Stephen Moyer, Larry King asked her some really clueless questions:

King: “Are you a non-practicing bisexual?”

Paquin: “Well, I am married to my husband and we are happily monogamously married.”

King: “But you were bisexual?”

Paquin: “Well, I don’t think it’s a past-tense thing.”

Larry King: “No?”

Larry King, syndicated talk show host, holds a weirdly common misconception that bisexuality means constantly having sex with men and women simultaneously.

The LGBTQ Community

The queer community treats bisexuals like a redheaded stepchild. Gays and lesbians often have the same negative attitude toward bisexuality that straight people do. A survey published in the The Journal of Bisexuality found that bisexual people receive only a little less discrimination from gays than they do from straights.

Bisexuals make up about half of the queer community and have always played a significant role in the LGBTQ rights movement, but they receive disproportionately little support in return. In Forty Years of LGBTQ Philanthropy: 1970-2010, Funders for LGBTQ Issues reports that bisexuals receive the least amount of funding out of all targeted LGBTQ sub-groups, less than 0.1 percent. Gay men received the most funding.

Back in 1999, Dan Savage told gay men not to get into relationships with bisexual men. Savage has softened toward bisexuals since then and insists he’s not biphobic, but in a more recent thinkpiece, he totally dismissed the concept of biphobia and suggested that bisexuals were to blame for discrimination against them because they weren’t out enough. Savage also wrote that it is “difficult for me to accept a bisexual teenage boy’s professed sexual identity at face value.” That’s not very different from clueless straight people who think that gay teens are just going through a phase. Coming out as bi is hard enough without getting shade from the people who are supposed to be your allies.

Bi people have to fight to make their voices heard in the queer rights movement. When they express their sexuality, they are often met with hostility. Bi activist RJ Aguiar says that when he wore his #StillBisexual shirt to the 2016 LA Pride Parade, he was “met with a lot of silent, sideways looks, and even the occasional remark like, ‘What are you doing here? This isn’t for you. Go home.’ “

Telling a bisexual person that they’re not welcome at an LGBTQ Pride Event is appalling. The queer community has to do better, and stop trying to chase the B out of LGBTQ.

73 notes · View notes

graces-of-luck · 4 years

Text

What is my aro latinidad (Carnival of Aros, March 2021)

I’m hosting Carnival of Aros this month (call for submissions can be found here) with the theme of intersectionality and inclusivity, and I figured I’d write a bit about my thoughts and experiences related to this.

There is no denying that the aromantic community is marginalized. We are small, often not acknowledged or recognized, pushed aside…This feeling is something I recognize as an experience of another aspect of my identity. A lot of people experience this multiple marginalization. Our different identities intersect and mingle and can sometimes create complicated, messy, entangled stories of ourselves. To compartmentalize these is to deny ourselves the expression of our whole selves. This is why I find intersectionality so important.

It makes sense that the aromantic community focuses on aromanticism. But we cannot deny that there can be many different ways to experience aromanticism. We engage in community and activism for several reasons: finding connection, having a place to be ourselves, increasing visibility, creating resources, and so forth. But I think an important reason for activism is to liberate ourselves. But we cannot liberate ourselves if we don’t include those who are marginalized for other reasons. It’s all of us or none of us. We may one day be able to “expand” the system to include us aromantics, but if we neglect those of us who are marginalized in other ways, it will be a false and tenuous freedom. It will become “alright, you’re allowed to be aromantic and we accept you, but only within this boundary.” This is the problem that I see with mainstream LGBTQ+ respectability politics. We complain about how “love is love” leaves us out… but we may be doing the same to our fellow aros if we don’t take diversity and intersectionality into account in our own community.

As I learn more about myself, the more realize how many times over I am a minority. But I will focus on one aspect of myself that I think receives little attention in the aromantic community. I am Latine. Specifically, I am a Latine immigrant, which influences how I experience my latinidad (and whether I am allowed to experience and express it).

Latine culture can have a rather strict view on marriage and children (especially in more conservative/religious populations). Getting married and having children is just something you do. It’s a duty. Depending on how strict it is, romance and attraction can be considered secondary (although I do see that changing). In a way, there is no romantic (or sexual) orientation because it doesn’t matter. Gay? Lesbian? Bi? Pan? Aro? Doesn’t matter, you still get married to someone of the “opposite” sex and have children. You might be queer, but it’s not something you do or act on. When I was a minor, dating was strictly prohibited in my household. The parents of my Latine peers were also often rather strict about dating, especially with girls. After I became an adult, my parents started pressuring me into dating but with the express purpose of getting married, not necessarily for “finding the love of my life” or for the purpose of romance. Saying things like “I’m not interested in dating or in romantic relationships” were often met with looks of “alright, and…?” Saying “I don’t want to get married and have kids” is what caught their attention.

I grew up with my parents telling me that family is the most important thing because you can’t rely on friends. “When you get older, your husband is going to be the only person you trust, and you can’t ever let friends interfere in that.” Now, an important detail. We are religious cult survivors. So it’s difficult for me to disentangle how much of this is due to distrust from trauma and being programmed (cults often program you to be insular and cut others out) and how much of it is due to amatonormativity and the cultural view on marriage. We are also immigrants, and marriage is often seen as a necessary (financial) safety net, so that could be a factor there too.

With all this, I find it difficult to come out to my family, not only because of potential backlash, but because… how do I even explain to them what a romantic orientation is? They’re aware that there are gay people, for instance, but to them that’s not an orientation. They would have to understand that 1) it is possible to be something other than straight, 2) it’s not a “lifestyle choice”, and 3) not being straight is not a consequence of trauma or abuse or mental illness. So I find often that coming out guidelines don’t really work for me because of this. Coming out as aromantic is already difficult because explaining aromanticism can be an ordeal in and of itself. In my case, I would have to start from the very beginning. Not to mention that the process and expectations of coming out are in some ways dominated by Whiteness.

One thing that was complicated in my aromantic journey is the differences in intimacy in Latine culture and in American culture, where I primarily grew up. For example, physical intimacy and affection are much more common and prevalent amongst family members and friends in Latine culture. In America, this is often reserved for romantic relationships. I am a physically affectionate person. Living in the US, you can guess the issues this brought. There has been growing acceptance of physical affection in friendship in American society, but it is frustrating to see how physical affection and other forms of intimacy are often considered romantic. This occurs even in the aromantic community sometimes, although much less so and I would say there is much more understanding that various forms of intimacy can occur in friendship. But it is sometimes odd for me when something I’d consider typical intimacy in friendship, such as physical intimacy, gets potentially labeled as sensual attraction. It would be great to see discussions on intimacy and relationships across cultures.

Also, as is in many areas, Latines and Hispanics tend to be left out or thrown in later as an afterthought. There is increasing recognition for the need of diversity in terms of racial and ethnic groups. Latines don’t always fit in neatly with PoC, so I wonder, where do I fit in? That same question arises when I see “aros of color” or “aro poc”… I’m a mix of things, but I am whitepassing (and therefore have White privilege). Let’s not forget the colonial and anti-Indigenous prejudices that have completely divorced me of my Indigenous heritage (greatly self-inflicted in my family). So I’m unsure if I can claim the aro of color label. But I also don’t completely fit into the typical White mold of the US or Western Europe, which are often considered the symbols of Whiteness. Nonetheless, because of living in the US and now Western Europe, their ideas of intimacy, relationships, and romance have been inflicted upon me as well. There is this feeling that aromantic community is largely White (at least the part of it that has garnered most attention), so the development of my aromantic identity has been shaped by this Whiteness. And it’s been a process for me to discover what a Latine version of my aromanticism would be. I don’t know yet what that is, to be honest. Latine culture can be diverse, and my version of latinidad is also complicated by the fact that I am a lifelong immigrant. Too American for Latin America, too Latine for America (funnily enough, my Latine identity is basically non-existent in Europe, I’m often just seen as American). Still, I would like to see more stories from Latine aros. I want to hear about what aromanticism means to Latines and how other Latines navigate coming out in their families. It seems that maybe there aren’t many Latine aros out there, but having more representation, while just a first step, would be so meaningful.

#carnival of aros #aromantic #aro intersectionality #culture #latine aros #cw religion mention #cw queerphobia #cw amatonormativity #cw romance #long post #gracedwithluck

10 notes · View notes

rittz · 4 years

Text

thoughts about being trans, idk where else to put them so here u go

it’s not like i don’t have trans guy friends to talk to about this, it’s just usually in the form of jokes or passing comments rather than an actually serious conversation. also, the transmasc people that i’m closest to identify more with the label “nonbinary” than i do-- it’s not like they couldn’t understand or relate to things i’m saying, but i’m just assuming that they probably don’t feel the exact same way i do

anyway, as a trans person we get often asked “so why do you feel like a [gender]?”, and the answer is usually some variation of “i just feel like it”. this is the most accurate but also vaguest possible answer, so i kinda wanted to break down my personal answer to that question?

basically, i identify as a man because i identify with men. in a general and also personal sense. gender stereotypes are something that trans people by necessity both embrace and reject. i relate to gender stereotypes about men more than those of women-- i’m less outwardly emotional, i like being handy, i don’t like kids, i have questionable personal hygiene, etc-- but obviously these things alone don’t make someone a man. however... you can’t deny that there is some general truth about behavioral differences between men and women (bc of society, not biology). men and women both experience different problems in the world, and each have trouble understanding the experiences and problems of the other. generally, i can relate to the experiences and problems of men more than those of women, even if it seems like i shouldn’t (for example, i am not afraid of walking alone at night, even though i am very tiny).

i, from a young age, have had a constant yearning for more male friends. i would occasionally choose to play video games as a male character. i was upset that i couldn’t be in boy scouts. i have been jealous of my younger brothers being treated by my parents the ways i wished i was treated. when i imagined myself older, i pictured myself less like my mom and more like my dad. when i’m around men, i want them to treat me like one of them. i want to be seen as a man.

and i think that’s what being trans really boils down to. wanting to be seen as someone other than how everyone sees you. wanting what you see on the outside to match how you feel on the inside. this obviously extends to nonbinary individuals, who face their own struggle when it comes to presentation. but at the end of the day, i think that presentation is equally important to gender identity as internal feelings. i mean, i think we’re all familiar with the research proving that transitioning makes trans people happier. surgery is an invasive, expensive, painful process that i DON’T think is necessary for every trans person, and HRT isn’t always easy to get. but changing a name, getting a new haircut, dressing differently, binding, etc. counts as transitioning. you don’t have to hate your body to be trans, but wanting to alter it in order to better connect your internal identity with your presentation, i think is necessary in order to consider yourself to be trans.

i will admit i am confused by “GNC trans men” i see on tumblr and insta, who use he/him pronouns but exclusively present femininely. i’m not talking about trans guys who don’t yet pass, i mean trans guys who don’t want to. i don’t harbor any ill will, i’m just confused. if i understand being trans to mean “wanting what you see on the outside to match how you feel on the inside”, you can see how. doesn’t that make you feel dysphoric? don’t you want people who see you to read you as male? how is your life different from when you didn’t identify as male but presented the same way? this isn’t me trying to gatekeep on who’s “trans enough”, and especially when it comes to nonbinary identities it’s arbitrary to harp on presentation like this. but like, what’s going on here?

taking a turn here that will come back around, an extremely key component to why i identify as and with men is my sexuality. i have always idolized, envied, and evoked various queer icons from media and real life. the hunky, grunting, macho, hetero version of “man” never appealed to me the way that the fashionable, artsy, flirty, homo version of “man” did. drag queens, my mom’s hairdresser, glam rock stars, i could go on. associating my more feminine qualities with GAY stereotypes instead of FEMALE stereotypes suddenly made more sense, and made me feel less dysphoric. it’s also something that took me a long time to realize, because i had surrounded myself with queers who were mostly attracted to women. transmascs and butch lesbians historically have a lot in common, but personally, i didn’t relate as much to lesbians as i did to drag queens. in dating and loving men, i developed my understanding of them. but my attraction to men was why it had taken me so long to realize i felt more like a man-- i thought i was just some weird straight girl.

now, am i calling these “GNC gay trans men” with long pink hair and poofy skirts and conventionally attractive bisexual boyfriends “weird straight girls”? ...well, not to their faces. but i have to admit that i’m thinking it. these people would never go to a predominantly-male gay bar, these people would never be harassed on the street. i’m not saying i know someone’s identity better than they do, but i don’t agree with the liberal utopian ideal of “let everyone do whatever they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone” when taken to mean that we can’t question other people’s choices. “why do you feel like a man?” is a question that, coming from another trans person, isn’t inherently transphobic. it’s not “forcing” someone to “prove” their “transness”, no one “owes” me an explanation of their identity. i’m just confused. i don’t disapprove of the way these people live their lives, i just want to know why.

a straight girl being feminine is different from a gay man being feminine, because it has less to do with personality and more to do with society’s historic view of gay men as closer to female than male because of the loving and fucking men aspect. an AMAB gay man wearing makeup and a crop top probably just wants to look good, but he is also signaling to other men that he’s gay via gender non-conformance. by being AFAB and female-passing, wearing makeup and a crop top is not GNC. in fact it’s pretty GC, and gay men will not recognize you as a gay man.

it’s easy to say “gender is fake so do whatever you want”, but like, we have to acknowledge reality. time is a social construct too, but we still use days of the week when talking to each other. strangers will treat you differently depending on what gender they interpret you as. different people will be willing to date you or not. you have to choose which public bathroom to go in. if being misgendered doesn’t bother these people, then who cares? but if it DOES, which it usually does, wouldn’t you want to take steps to prevent being misgendered in the future? if your desire to present femininely is stronger then your desire to be seen as male, then like... why call yourself a male at all? ultimately nothing these people do will really affect me in any way. it just makes me wonder if these people will eventually go on to present as male, or if they will later ID as nonbinary or even cis. i encourage people trying out different labels and exploring their identity, so it’s not like i think these people SHOULDN’T identify as trans guys. it’s more like, i wish they were able to articulate WHY they identify as trans more than “because i said so”. not wanting to be a woman doesn’t automatically make you a man, it just makes you not a woman.

maybe i’m particularly cynical because of the MULTIPLE times that people with larger online followings who identify and present this way have later turned out to be lying, manipulative people. hopefully it goes without saying that i do NOT think that everyone who identifies and presents this way is a toxic liar. the reason i bring it up is because some people genuinely can’t understand the possibility or purpose of misleadingly claiming a marginalized identity, but it can and does happen. an analogy could be made here about white people claiming indigenous heritage. we all WANT to believe what people say about themselves, and asking for “proof” is a social no-no. but we shouldn’t just... automatically trust everything someone says about themselves, right? and as bad as i WANT to live in a world where gender doesn’t matter and everyone default uses neutral pronouns and there are no divisions in clothing stores and bathrooms, we don’t live in that world (yet). when you are AFAB, /extremely/ femininely presenting, and have little to no plans of transitioning, saying “i am a man” will not make other people see you as one. and if you don’t want to be seen as a man, then maybe you aren’t one.

#lgbt #ftm #long...

20 notes · View notes

waitingtoexhale · 4 years

Text

Queer Media One Tragic at a Time Has Reprogrammed My Brain

I find myself continually lowering my standards for the type of media I consume. Queer character? Check. Limited tragedy? Check. At least once instance of happiness? Check. Alright, that’s good enough for me. I LOVE THIS *insert media type here* SHOW, MOVIE, SONG! But, along with the good comes the bad and the ugly. Along with the brief instances of happy, complex, characters come the violence, the stereotypes, the woe. At this point, simply having a queer character that doesn’t die is the best I can hope for and that truly stresses me out. On a regular basis.

In Queer Youth Cultures, Karen said it perfectly, “I think there's a lack of homosexual characters who are presented in a positive and uplifting, or not even positive and uplifting but just represented on the screen or in the media in general. I guess it's a desire to have a voice. I know this sounds like pure shit, but it's a desire to have a voice, to feel that l'm being spoken for or even just represented. But that there's a voice up there that's representing, or at least trying to represent my own experience. I want to have a say in what's going on and I'm not willing to just accept the images that are represented in front of me as being the only possibility. I take it maybe beyond its limitations of what's there. I try to expand, try to just open it up to possible choices that exist for me that might not exist for the creators for that particular film or TV show. But I will be heard” (2008, p.175-176).

Shameless acceptance of the toxic gay dynamic:

While sexuality is particular to each individual, the social constructions of heterosexuality and homosexuality are cultural categories humans use to make sense of their sexuality (Queer Analysis, 2010, p.198). Shameless, an American comedy-drama television series based on a British show of the same name, stars Cameron Monaghan as Ian, a closeted teenage boy who realizes he is gay and navigates the complexities of his queerness as a social identity and Noel Fisher as Mickey, a closeted homophobic thug who upon realizing he is gay engages in a sexual relationship with the one other queer person he knows who also happens to be the kid he violently bullied. Ian and Mickey start as a toxic portrayal of settling and acceptability in its truest form. Ian is in a predatory relationship with an adult and still possess a great deal of internalized homophobia when he is essentially propositioned by Mickey and their turbulent relationship begins. Mickey is struggling between his desires as a closeted gay teen and his need to match the criminal ideals expected of his father and family name. They are an explosive pair that seem to cause each other physical pain and mental anguish, yet the fans are wholly supportive. Even when healthy potential partners are introduced, the toxic couple of Ian and Mickey are reunited time and time again because media has established a trope where queer characters are only allowed complicated togetherness. Queer characters are punished for choosing their queerness and therefore not allowed true love and happiness. Despite having this knowledge and nothing in common personally with these characters, I love this couple and I love this pairing, so I am part of the problem. I am a product of this generation of idolizing toxic behaviors between characters because unfortunately those are the only “happy” queer characters I have seen continually produced. I have settled into a pattern of accepting negative stereotypes as simply good enough. I have traded the simple fact that the queer character doesn’t die for the harsh reality of their lives.

Another sad queer lacking Glee:

When queer characters are introduced, there are a set number of personality types and lived experiences they are allowed to have. Take Dave Kurofsky from Glee who serves as the closeted homophobic bully who after being outed in the “On My Way” episode attempts suicide and is comforted by the out-and-proud effeminate Kurt, a previous victim of Kurofsky’s wrath. We get to observe the pointed shift in Kurofsky’s personality from homophobic bully to repentant closeted queer, but the lack of character development unfortunately makes it difficult to feel sorry for him as a character. Instead, as an audience, we are forced to revel in “media representations of queer culture as essentialist, marking out the dichotomies between male and female, heterosexual versus homosexual (Queer Youth Cultures, 2008, p.175). Kurofsky is unable to learn what it means to be a queer man and grow from his internalized homophobia because he is coming his existence and framing his life experiences through that of Kurt; this is apparent when Kurofsky is unable to dance with Kurt at prom because of the perception of gayness. We accept Kurofsky’s story as powerful and real and heartbreaking because it is, but at what point do content creators have an obligation to tell the story a different way, in a positive uplifting light?

Degrassi: The Next Generation of bury your gays tropes:

Degrassi: The Next Generation, a Canadian teen drama television series, made history for tackling the tough social issues affecting teens, but frequently not talked about. They embraced diversity in their casting and range of topics covered while spearheading a progressive movement of introducing characters traditionally absent from popular media. Adam, a trans male character played by a cis female actress is a well-rounded first introduction to many into the lives of trans youth. The audience is familiarized with concepts such as passing and outing as well as the complexities involved in sexuality vs gender. Adam, besides being inaccurately portrayed by a cis woman, which is damaging to the idea that trans folks are the gender they have identified with rather than their gender assigned at birth, provides a much needed avenue of representation for queer youth in popular media. Continuing with our previously identified tropes, as a result of Adam being happy, relatively healthy, and well-liked he has to die. Queer characters are not afforded regular happiness in media they are given a taste then sacrificed as tools of writing via violence, sacrifice, or martyrdom. Adam is not gay bashed or driven to suicide as other queer characters are, but instead tragically killed as a texting while driving PSA. This death is particularly hard felt because Adam was truly shaping out to be a normal high school kid facing the complexities of life and surviving, but the creators, once again, took a queer character as the source for a lesson in some predetermined idea that queer happiness is short lived and tragic regardless of circumstance. There is a need for punishment of their queerness.

Queer punishment, a Supernatural concept:

What do shipping, fandoms, and heteronormative dominant culture have in common? Queerbaiting. Queerbaiting, “a term employed by media fans to criticize homoerotic suggestiveness in contemporary television when this suggestiveness is not actualized in the program narrative” (Brennan, 2016, p.1). A concept typically negatively connoted is a primary tool of heteronormative culture ensuring queer culture remains as a subculture rather than its own, established independent source of media. Audiences, particularly queer individuals, are forced to imagine scenarios and worlds where their identities are represented and dominant. “By creating a fantasy space, queer youth have an environment where they are free to explore many possibilities” (Queer Youth Culture, 2008, p.174). From these creative worlds come the likes of couples like Dean and Castiel (#Destiel) from Supernatural. The creators introduce intimacy and connectedness; the couple is ideal and non-stereotypical or superficial. Unfortunately, our trend of no happy endings for queer media continues because despite the fan observations and urging this couple is never acknowledged or confirmed as such. They instead give several seasons of romantic teasing culminating in a teary subversive confession immediately preceded by death and not just any death, a death where Castiel, an angel character is drug to hell. The sub context is overwhelming in deciding queerness is so offensive that any acknowledgement to the sort should result in punishment akin to biblical reckoning.

Lingua Franca, the road to universal language and communication:

Even as queer media continually evolves becoming evermore accurate and inclusive the conditioning I have been subjected to, as a consumer of queer media, completely reprogram my brain. While watching something as relevant and present as Lingua Franca I am unable to completely enjoy the film as I am waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop. Lingua Franca is a progressive film about a trans Filipina woman seeking a path to legal immigration in Trump’s America. The film is written, directed, and stars Isabel Sandoval an actual trans woman of color and therefore the portrayal is very real. As a film about a trans woman, the pace is melodic and light while the subject matter is focused on the life of Olivia rather than her transition or identity as a trans woman. While watching the film, I found it beyond refreshing that there were no invasive surgery questions or blatant misgendering by supposed loved ones. That being said, as a first watch through, it was anxiety inducing; the lack of discussion regarding Olivia’s trans identity led me to worry for her safety in a cis-heteropatriarchal world. When Olivia is engaging in her relationship with Alex I see the natural connections, simplicity, sensuality, and beauty, but I also worry about the potential for the violence I have come to expect when viewing true queer happiness. The scene where Olivia is outed by Alex’s friend shifted the entire tone of the film for me as I watched Alex spiral and truly cringed at the thought of watching another film showing an act of physical violence against a trans woman of color. While that thankfully did not happen, the fact that I remained restless throughout the entirety of the film waiting for it alludes to this reprogramming of sorts that has occurred. Creators show queer characters as poor unfortunate souls brought down by their queer identities therefore, I have come to expect and root for in some regards, a victim. There are limited instances when I can truly enjoy a queer film without a sinking feeling in my stomach waiting for the catch, waiting to exhale and simply experience queer joy.

#queer representation #intersectionality #queer youth culture #tragic queer #shameless #glee #degrassi #supernatural #lingua franca

1 note · View note

the2020romanceproject · 5 years

Text

Review: Red, White, and Royal Blue

You guys. This book. This book is FREAKING AMAZING. This is basically everything I wanted from a romance novel. I am probably ruined for other romance novels now because this one is SO GREAT.

Not going to do a full summary of this one, because 1) lots of stuff happens (which is part of why it’s so great), and 2) I want everyone to read it and don’t want to completely spoil it. But the basic premise is that Alex is the son of the sitting U.S. president and Henry is a prince of England, and—according to Alex, anyway—they start out hating each other. Then they inadvertently cause an international incident and have to pretend to be friends for P.R. reasons, and feelings happen and so do lots and lots of other things and it is ADORABLE and ANGSTY and PLOTTY and all the characters are amazing and I can marry this book, yes? Thank you.

I was worried when I started reading romance novels. I was worried that the strength of the romance-focused plots found in fanfiction would be diluted by the need to include other aspects of plot. Then I read a couple of romance novels and was worried that the strength of the romance-focused plot would be diluted by romance-genre customs like having the characters sleep together halfway through even if that destroys all the tension. This book is proof that neither of those things has to be a problem. It had an excellent romance plot that was only enhanced by the very robust political and interpersonal subplots that happened around it. I am SO impressed.

Okay, the romance plot first. Here are some of the things I liked about it (spoilers, caution):

Alex didn’t realize he was attracted! He didn’t even realize he was bi!*

But he obviously was attracted to Henry

Henry was obviously into him (obvious to everyone except Alex, that is)

We were only in Alex’s POV and not Henry’s and so we got to enjoy the dramatic irony of the above

Alex is very stupid about his own sexual past and how normal best friends act together

Everyone else knew basically all of this before Alex did

Even after they got together, Alex lied to himself about how he was falling in love even those it was clear that he was

Henry had real reasons for backing off from the relationship and being scared

The characters had SO MUCH DEPTH omg

Their banter! It was so good

I really liked both of them and believed that they were better together

(*It’s super legit to write characters who do know they’re queer. I just personally love it when they don’t know, because it speaks to my didn’t-realize-she-was-bi-until-age-25 soul.)

These plot elements are not specific to fanfiction. There’s plenty of fanfiction that doesn’t do all or even any these things. But they’re also all very common in fic, and when you put them all together it felt very much like the kind of romance plot I might have come across on AO3. I hope these plot elements aren’t unusual in the romance genre, either, because I find them SO effective and satisfying.

Take Alex not realizing at first that he was attracted. This is something I was surprised by in the other romance novels I’ve read so far: that those characters saw each other and were immediately like, “Yup, that’s my type of person, super into that body!” And...that’s fine, I guess? A little alien to me, since I don’t tend to experience attraction that way, but I guess there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s a bit of a missed opportunity, though, because it jumps right over the potential tension of us watching and waiting for the character to realize they’re attracted.

Granted, it can be hard in a book with original characters to signal to the reader right away that yes, these two people are going to be into each other. I can see why many romance novels include that initial recognition of attraction. But this book is proof that you don’t need to do it that way. It’s completely clear to the reader that Alex is going to be into Henry—that he already is, and isn’t recognizing that attraction for what it is—and we still get to watch him go on the delightful journey from, “Ew, this guy is the worst” to “Oh crap I’m actually super into him.”

I think this is getting at a fundamental type of tension that was missing from the first two romance novels I read. I talked about the difference between sexual and romantic tension, and that stands, but each of those comes in a couple varieties: there’s the tension between what the characters want and what they have, and then there’s the tension between what the characters want and what they THINK they want. In The Soldier’s Scoundrel, those two things are pretty much the same: the two characters know they’re attracted to each other, and then, as they go through each step of falling in love, they acknowledge it openly in the narration. That’s fine but kind of boring, and it means that instead of waiting for the characters to catch up to their own feelings, we’re waiting for those feelings to form. It is just plain not as interesting to wait for a character to develop a feeling as it is to wait for them to acknowledge a feeling they’re hiding from themselves. Plus, people are bad at recognizing their own desires! It’s a thing! Especially when those desires are inconvenient or unexpected or would leave them vulnerable. There are plenty of good ways to introduce this tension without it feeling forced, and it can add so much.

(This is probably part of why I like characters who don’t recognize that they’re queer, actually—it adds another layer to the knowledge gap. But, again, that’s largely a personal preference, and I recognize the value of a variety of queer experiences in literature.)

The other thing this book did that I think strengthened the romantic plot in a major way was to stick to one point of view. I honestly don’t think I would have said a month ago that I felt so strongly about this. Most of the fic I’ve read is in one point of view, and I’ve never really thought about the alternative. But I’m starting to realize that switching points of view can take a reader out of the characters’ heads in really unfortunate ways. The human experience just never involves knowing absolutely what someone else is thinking. So if you’re living through a character’s eyes, experiencing the world as them...you shouldn’t know what a different character is thinking. Not every story has to immerse us in a character’s head to this degree—but romance should, I think. That’s the fun of it. And it just doesn’t work as well with two points of view. Plus, you lose the question of what exactly the other person is thinking, and even if you can pretty much guess—well, again, you’re going to be more fully in the main character’s head if you have to guess instead of knowing.

And the tension. Oh man. There isn’t one thing this book did to ensure continual tension in its romantic plot; it just did a fantastic job of transitioning between one kind of tension and the next. (Major spoilers ahead.) First Alex doesn’t think he’s into Henry, even though the reader can tell he has a crush. Then Henry kisses him and Alex realizes he’s attracted, but we get sexual tension because Henry’s not talking to him and then because it’s hard for them to end up in the same place at the same time (situational tension). Then we start to get romantic tension where Alex is in love but doesn’t recognize it, and then later when Alex knows he’s in love but isn’t saying it yet. Then more romantic tension when Alex finally confesses and Henry walks away (which, btw, major props to this book for succeeding at having someone walk away from a love confession and not having me think any less of their potential relationship). Then they finally get together for real but there’s the situational tension of them maybe doing serious damage their respective governments. Every single time one kind of tension gets resolved, there’s another kind waiting in the wings, ready to take over. It’s just...what a masterpiece.

So, yes, excellent romance plot, top marks. Everything surrounding the romance was fantastic, too, which just...that is SO HARD TO DO. One of my questions at the start of this year of reading was whether romance novels would feel more like novels than fanfiction does, and this one certainly does. There’s a phenomenon in fanfiction, and I noticed it in previous romance novels, too, where the outside world just sort of...dips into view where convenient, and then recedes from view without having real consequences or significant continuity. And that’s fine. It works better in fanfiction than in original works, I think, because fanfiction can draw on an independent canon or fanon. But in both places, it results (or can result) in a very strong romance where nothing else in the world matters much to the story, and that’s okay.

But this book. There was so much plot! So much world, and I cared about all of it! ALL the characters are extremely well-drawn, and I cared about their mini-arcs. The political situation interacted with and enhanced the romance plot but also mattered in its own right and had its own complexities. And none of it made the romance feel any less present or central or powerful. It was so well done.

Okay. I’m done gushing now. I’m moving on to what I hope will be a recurring new feature: fanfiction I’m going to recommend based on this book. These are all stories that I thought about while reading Red, White, and Royal Blue, and if you liked the book, you might want to explore these. (It’s worth noting that I regularly read fanfiction without knowing anything about the canon. I know that weirds some people out, but if you’re on the fence, I would encourage you to give it a try!)

Let Toretto Be Toretto (The Fast and the Furious political AU, by astolat)—oh man, astolat. Truly the best of us all. This one is much shorter and doesn’t have the prince aspect, but it’s a fanastic journey through gay pining and the presidency.

The Student Prince (Arthur/Merlin college AU, by fayjay)—this felt like the most obvious comparison story for me. Fanfiction boasts a plethora of modern-day prince AUs across many fandoms, but this is one I read recently and really enjoyed. The non-romance plot is less robust than in Red, White, and Royal Blue, but there are a lot of strong similarities.

Not Easily Conquered (Steve/Bucky, by dropdeaddreams and WhatAreFears)—Henry and Alex’s emails reminded me so strongly of this one. All-around gorgeous.

And now, on to the next romance novel that I will almost inevitably be disappointed in after this phenomenon. Someone tell me when Casey McQuiston publishes something else.

#reviews #romance novels #red white and royal blue #fanfic meta

43 notes · View notes

kae-karo · 4 years

Note

hi! me again! i understand that bi/pan people with a preference would never be considered lesbians but i had it presented to me as being like bisexual homoromantic which would be as valid as being ace and homoromantic right? and i don't understand how A's id could affect or imply anything about B's id? like the acknowledgment of demigirls doesn't affects girls being fully girls? as far as pronouns isn't the whole point that they ARE gendered, otherwise we would all just be they/them? (1/2)

non queer people very much understand pronouns to indicate gender. so why is language malleable when it comes to redefining gender and pronouns but not when it comes to using orientation labels differently? also i read that carrd and want to clarify i would never make the argument that trans people aren't "really" the gender they id as. also, i'm sorry for asking so much but i'm just trying to understand.

hi dear! for context (x) and please don’t apologize for asking questions! there are so many people who would rather shut down and not try to understand, i will always greatly appreciate people who are actively trying to learn

also sorry this got wAY too long lmao i have a lot of thoughts, apparently...

as for the way the term bi/pan lesbian was presented to you, that’s totally understandable! and again, per my lil caveat, the idea of expressing a difference in romantic and sexual attraction with a single term (like being bi/pansexual but lesbian in terms of romantic attraction) is totally chill but i think the part that starts to come into question is the large movement of people who were using bi/pan lesbian in the way i described in my other post (ie as a way to express that they are “lesbian but with some attraction to men, still”)

in terms of how person A identifies and how that affects person B, the point is less about an individual interaction - no, how a stranger chooses to identify themself does not directly affect my identity. to your notion of demigirls and the fact that they don’t negate the identity of women, that’s totally true! it’s not so much that a person’s identity negates another’s, more that the words a person uses to identify themself can affect others, because we tie certain terms with certain experiences. by a group of people commandeering terminology that already has an experience tied to it, the people who already use that terminology (because they have that experience) can start to feel as though their experience and identity are being called into question

okay, so if bi/pan lesbians become a standard terminology to describe ppl who would id as lesbians if not for some attraction to men, that could start to bring into question whether all or any lesbians could be attracted to men (as the person in the tweet mentioned). now (certain) men may start to believe that any person who ids as a lesbian might still be attracted to men, so these certain men may think that they have a chance with that lesbian even though the man ids as a man! this could lead to harassment, or the lesbian in question may already be prone to some internalized homophobia. now they’re starting to wonder if their attraction should include men because they id as a lesbian (and apparently, lesbian could include attraction to men), or if they’ve just been ‘confused’, as people may have told them before, and they start to doubt their own identity and whether ‘lesbian’ is the right reflection of their experiences (which it is, except that the term has been hijacked and presented as including experiences that actually belong in the bi/pan community)

and, once again, the way the terminology is structured (a ‘bi/pan lesbian’) seems to imply that the person in question doesn’t want to be attracted to men. if they did, why not use an umbrella term like bi or pan as their identity? the only distinguishing feature here is that one is inclusive while the other says ‘i’m attracted to women primarily and would like to identify as a lesbian, except for that pesky bit of me that’s attracted to men too...’ again, this is a harmful ideology to let grow, not only for those already identifying as bi/pan but for baby queers who may not fully understand their own identities yet! or for people outside the community who are trying to understand to the best of their abilities as allies!

to that end, it also propagates that harmful rhetoric of ‘oof, doesn’t it suck to be attracted to men lmao’ like MAN that’s really hurtful to guys??? and that rhetoric already exists. notions like this (where a wonderful umbrella term is turned into something that seeks to minimize attraction to men/male-aligned genders) can be so harmful not only to cis men and transmasc/trans men who are a part of the community but men outside the community as well

okay with regards to pronouns: i think this is where we start to get into the deconstruction of gender as a social construct. i feel like the most apt analogy here is the one i provided in the other post: names. names have, throughout history, been gendered (for the most part). sally was a girl, timmy was a boy. but we’ve started to deconstruct that as we’ve started to recognize that there are more than 2 genders (as a societal whole, i’m aware that this hasn’t been news in a while for people in the queer community). you have names like alex, sam, riley, names that you can’t look at and go ‘ah, they are [certain] gender!’ which is awesome for everyone! esp for people who are sensitive about their gender identity and for whom it is bothersome, upsetting, or even triggering to be misgendered!

pronouns are grammatically just a substitute for a noun, they take the place of the noun for the sake of ease of speech/writing. so the first question here is why, if we’ve extrapolated and separated the idea of someone’s name from their gender and acknowledged that the thing that we refer to them by is just...a noise they like, then why is it necessary for pronouns (another thing that is just a noise the person likes) to be inherently tied to a gender? a gender is a representation of an experience, but people who use the same pronouns may have nothing in common in terms of their gender experience!

now, you could argue that people who use they/them pronouns may be able to rally around a shared experience/frustration with getting others to use and accept those pronouns, but they likely aren’t all going to share a gender - maybe some are fem-aligned, or masc-aligned, or genderfluid or agender or any other gender on the massive spectrum of possible gender identities. but the way that they ask others to refer to themselves purely as an individual does not help give any insight into their experiences or community!

you stated that ‘as far as pronouns isn't the whole point that they ARE gendered?’, so my question here is what purpose do pronouns actually serve? they allow you to refer to a person without using their name, right? so if we’re talking outside the world of grammar, i would argue that a person’s pronouns are an extension of their name: the purpose of a name and/or pronouns is to ensure that they make the user of said name/pronouns comfortable in their identity when being referred to. they are whatever gender they are (if any at all) - they may choose a name and pronouns to help them feel more comfortable in who they are. in fact, they may choose a name and pronouns that they didn’t use from birth simply because they do not feel comfortable with them for non-gender-related reasons, too!

and i can hear you thinking ‘okay, so why can’t we do that with labels like sexuality and just let people use whatever feels okay?’ and this is sort of the way i think about it: there are certain words we have defined with clarity in order to help us as a community understand ourselves and each other. we all agree that cis = you are the gender you were assigned at birth, trans = you are not the gender you were assigned at birth. lesbian means attraction to women/fem-aligned genders, ace means feeling no sexual attraction, bi and pan are siblings of each other that define attraction to all genders (which may or may not include preferences). male and female as genders have clear enough meanings that we use them in our other definitions, and nonbinary is a lovely catch-all umbrella that can encompass anything outside ‘male’ and ‘female’, even though there are also more specific identities that fall under that umbrella

(quick aside - fwiw i don’t think gender definitions are necessarily malleable in the same way pronoun ‘definitions’ are, i think there are gender experiences that we have not yet given formal terms to and that people may switch around between existing gender identifying terms as they look for ones that get close to their own and i think there’s still a question of what it even means to be a certain gender without reference to other genders, but as it stands, people who identify with certain gender terms do so because of a set of shared experiences that fall underneath that gender term)

what we have not done is defined an individual’s right to their experiences. if someone feels attraction to all genders with a preference for men, there’s a word to express that! if a person feels like they might shift between a variety of genders on a regular basis, there’s a word for that! if a person does not feel romantic attraction, there’s a word for that! and the reason we use these words with pre-defined definitions is so that we can identify people who share our experiences - if someone identifies as a lesbian, they can seek out other lesbians and know that they are among a group that understands what they have been through or are going through. if someone experiences attraction to all genders with a female/fem-aligned preference, they are likely not going to find a community that understands their experiences if they look for people who identify as lesbian

but if a person decides that hey, i feel most myself when people call me ‘emma’ even though that wasn’t my assigned birth name, that is when we step back and say ‘yes, that’s awesome! you do you!’ because there is no pre-defined definition of that name - yes, there’s a societal gender often associated with it, but it doesn’t provide anyone any benefit to assign a definition of an experience to that name. nobody is out there going ‘where are all the ‘emmas’, the ‘emmas’ understand my experience and i want to find them so that i can feel as though i’m part of the ‘emma’ community’

now, idk about you, but if i hear that someone uses she/her pronouns, that means....almost nothing to me, except that i know that they prefer those pronouns! in the same way that someone saying ‘oh, my name is emma’ means nothing to me except that their name is emma! whereas if someone says to me, ‘i’m asexual’, i know from their choice of identifier that they fall under the ace umbrella and awesome, this person might understand how i feel about certain subjects! (obviously ace is a huge spectrum in itself, but you get the idea)

in summary:

an orientation or a gender relates to an individual’s experiences, and the general definitions we have assigned to certain orientations and genders should remain somewhat clearly-defined in order to provide a sense of community for those that fall under the orientation/gender in question. that is not to say that new orientations/gender terms can’t arise to describe new experiences that do not already have a definition. the irritation with the ‘bi/pan lesbian’ discourse is that the experience described (attraction to all genders with fem-aligned preference) already has a defined term (bi or pan) that is contradictory to the term ‘lesbian’

the reason pronouns don’t need to fall under a clear definition is that they are not a signal to indicate a uniting experience - their purpose and function is equivalent to that of a name: it’s a way to refer to a person that makes that person feel comfortable, and it’s perfectly fine not to have a rigid definition for pronouns in the same way that you wouldn’t assign a name to have a rigid experience or definition associated with it

i know it’s a long read, but i hope that helps clarify my thoughts on the matter!

#anon #ask

1 note · View note

sponsoredbyanxiety · 5 years

Text

I was going to post this as a reply to a post I saw this morning, but it kinda morphed into its own thing and I didn’t want to derail an innocent Tumblr poster’s post with nonsense so...here’s my manifesto on Taylor Swift’s video “The Man”

My personal biggest criticism with "The Man" is more of a criticism of the industry and leans towards a Marxist-femminist one, but I think this is a good opertunity to talk about it.

Drag is impressive because it's easy and difficult almost simultaneously. It's crazy that Taylor can go from basically the feminine ideal to total bro with only makeup and prosthetics. It's why I love drag queens - like, I know you are a man, I've talked to you as a man, yet here you are looking so much like a woman any stranger wouldn't know the difference. It's so empowering from a queer perspective to show that the only difference between being perceived as a man or as a woman is a bit of blush and mascara.

Of course, "a bit of blush and mascara" is underselling the work drag performers and makeup artists, especially the ones on this music video, do. I'm confident the makeup on this video took hours. Talyor did not do that herself. Makeup artists did that. They spent a long time turning "Girl-Taylor" into "Boy-Taylor", and their work was so impressive that Taylor chose to profile them in the credits to her video. Credits which...only include her (and, okay, a VO from Dwayne Johnson).

It's not typical for music video credits to include makeup artists, but it is awfully ironic that Tayor chose to highlight the work of artists (usually female artists - hair & makeup, as well as the art department more broadly, is one of the only fields in video production where the leads are disproportionately female) over credits listing Taylor, Taylor & Talyor.

Not only is Taylor obscuring these artists's existence in the credits, but she's probably also legally preventing them from even acknowledging that their labor made the video possible. While it's not quite industry standard among smaller artists yet, it's been increasingly common in the last few years for the big artists to request that music video crew members sign NDAs promising not to speak to the press or on social media about their involvement in projects like this. While that prohibition makes sense before the release of the video (to prevent spoilers/the surprise drop), these NDAs specify that crew members are never allowed to speak about working on set - even if they only want to say it was a positive experience. Like CIA rules - pretend you never worked on this video. Fine for breaking the NDA can be MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

If you don't sign the NDA, you don't get the job, and if you don't get the job, you don't get rent money this month, and the producer won't hire you on their next project because you are being difficult, and your agent will drop you for not making them money, so you won't be able to find other producers to work for. You have no choice but to pretend you don't exist.

Working in music video production means 12-16 hour days in the most expensive city in the United States for barely enough money to live. Each job is about 3-7 days of work at a time, maybe more if you do pre-production, and you are constantly looking for more jobs because, as I said, one job isn't even one week of work. Many people who work in production have told me they will not do music video work ever again because it is hell - but many others don't really have a choice. Uber-low budget films that don't pay the cast and crew will offer "copy, credit, and meals" - music videos, while paid work, do not even offer credit.

This is the ultimate alienation of labor. You ever hear an old autoworker point to a rusted yet still running Ford at a gas station proudly say "We built that, the car still runs because of our craftsmanship"? People naturally take pride in their work. It's hard not to. Yet some music video artists are technically not supposed to even post "look at this video I worked on!" to Facebook. Granted, positive social media posts usually escape legal attention when they do happen, but I’ve heard of crew members getting blacklisted for talking too much.

Working in music video production disempowered me so much it contributed to my two suicide attempts within the span of a month last year. It's not a problem exclusive to Taylor Swift, but it's certainly not one she has done anything to dismantle (and one that she has helped make worse). If you enjoyed any of the projects I worked on at that time (which I will not list for obvious reasons, so this is purely hypothetical), I really am happy that something I helped create brightened your day. That's why I became a part of the entertainment industry - I wanted to make things that people like watching. I'm very proud of all the work I did. I just wish we were treated like people and not disposable machines.

This music video, owned by Taylor Swift, was created by the work of overworked, underpaid, uncredited artists, many of which are women, whose names we will never know. Who, exactly, is this video empowering?

#taylor swift #tw: suicide #the man

9 notes · View notes

stabbedinthenameofscience · 4 years

Text

Romance Normativity

Here’s the deal. I understand that the idea that a woman can be both a central strong character and have a love story is totally feminist and good. I get that Wonder Woman has the strength in this area because she isn’t diminished by the love story or made incapable because of it. This is positive representation for many people, to see a powerful woman in love who can be strong even with a man- it’s a gender reversal.

But for those of us who are aromantic (anywhere along the spectrum), this may be difficult to swallow as the common form of positive representation of women with power. This is why, to me, Captain Marvel was so revolutionary. She could be powerful, she could have a buddy cop and a bff storyline, and romance didn’t have to come into it at all. It was an incredible moment to have a film where I saw something that really resonated with me. Her story line throughout the MCU feels inclusive because I can actually relate to a character without that awkward focus on a kind of affection that can really feel uncomfortable sometimes. I’m demiromantic and demisexual, so I do experience it in very specific settings, but...so many movies just linger on the romantic subplot and it really makes it difficult to relate, on occasion.

And even when it’s not difficult to relate to...we are drowning in the heteronormative romantic flood of movies that come out every year. It is strikingly different when a movie comes along that seems to intentionally exclude it because it just isn’t necessary to the character plot.

The point isn’t that we need to not have strong women represented who can still have romantic relationships without it diminishing their power, it’s that we need a diversity in characters and plot types and what we aren’t seeing is a lot of choice of movies that completely exclude romantic plots, yet still features strong women as their leads.

I was once told that it was good to have the choices between strong lead women like Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel so we have that diversity. This is true. But the person who said this relates to the romantic subplot as a part of their experience. These movies are written with them as the target audience. Not me. Not the queer nonbinary demi ace/aro person. So can we acknowledge that there’s a gap here and it is necessary to rectify this because yeah, you folks have those choices, and that’s awesome...but people like me have very few leads to relate to.

I need more movies with characters like Captain Marvel and Furiosa. I want to see women who are driven by things that don’t involve romance. It is a relief to sit down to these films.

Now we’ll really be rolling when we have nonbinary ace/aro leads in movies.

I can dream, right?

3 notes · View notes

samjdg · 6 years

Text

Are you gay or something?

Every day I see different views and opinions, information about LGBTQIA+ in the films that I watch, in real life etc. Some are interesting, some ridiculous, some unfair and some have quite a potential to evoke aggression. The discussions about LGBTQIA+ people have started to cover more than just their lifestyles, choices and problems, now those topics have been turned into entertainment by some cisgender heterosexual individuals who have not understood the whole concept. How?

One of the queer films that I watched caused me quite discomfort. But the fact that I could not find anyone who had already started a discussion about those certain scenes in the movie upset me even more. The name of the movie: Alex Strangelove. Maybe you have heard or even watched. Did you sense something strange while watching too?

Alex, who loves his girlfriend as a person so much, realises that he does not have any sexual desires towards her. All friends of this high school student already had sexual experiences, therefore he gets slightly mocked for not feeling ready for it yet. His girlfriend, Claire, complains about Alex not letting her to devirginize him in front of his friends. Even though everything was quite unethical till this point, what happens after that cannot be excused as foolishness of teenage kids. Not physically or sexually, but Claire starts to pressure Alex psychologically into having sex. As a result, young boy, with the thought that “he is supposed to want it just like other guys”, tries to prepare himself mentally. During the film, Alex’s doubts about his sexuality, frustration and discomfort have been portrayed clearly. Near the end of the film, two teenagers meet at the hotel and start their attempts. However, it does not work out as they planned and Alex admits he cannot do it, eventually gives up. Claire insists on getting an explanation for Alex’s lack of interest in having sex with her and asks the famous question when she cannot get what she wants: “Are you gay?”

The thing is, Alex did like another boy in the movie, but is that really so simple? It is not very rare either in films or real life to see that boys are automatically assumed to be gay when they show lack of interest in having sex with a girl. Sentences like “If he does not fancy you, then he is gay” are probably familiar to most of us. Who are the ones facing the unjust behaviour here?

A boy does not and should not need an excuse or any dramatic cause not to want to have sex. If he does not want it, then he does not want it and that should not be up for discussion. Saying things like “all boys love sex”, “no boy can say “no” to a girl” limits the freedom and comfort of men, and in most cases have the potential to result in a rape case where a boy is a silent victim.

But I will talk about it in more details in other blog posts. What I want to focus on here is the point that some heterosexual people put other sexual orientations and gender identities in a sort of subcategory or in an unimportant position. When someone cannot accept being regarded as “uninteresting” or “unattractive” by the opposite sex, they label those particular opposite sex members as “gays” and “lesbians” most of the time. The aftermath of those labels, and its effect on the sexuality and lives of those people is a heavy issue.

For another example you can watch first few episodes from the first season of “Shameless”. I have to note that media portrays most guys as gays when they refuse to have sex with a girl. In many movies, the rejection by a boy is justified as homosexuality as if it can be the only logical explanation. This kind of misrepresentation in media gives a wrong message to people and normalises the wrong attitude towards people’s sexualities, in most cases, boys’ sexualities.

In the Netflix TV series named “Sense8”, the girl comes to her colleague’s house drunk even though the boy had rejected her the very same day. The boy keeps saying that he does not want to do it, however the girl tries to undress him, and she takes her own clothes off too. This disturbing scene where she keeps following him around trying to touch him inappropriately continues until she finds out that this guy actually has a boyfriend. And I have never seen anyone on internet referring to that scene as sexual harassment.

Gay people do not exist for heterosexual people, so that they can handle the rejection from the opposite sex better and protect their fragile ego. It is absurd to associate the lack of interest in sexual activity with someone only with the lack of interest in the entire gender (sex in this case).

The same girl also takes pictures of those boys having sex and even masturbates watching them in some episode.

A new method I have recently learned about is that some girls tell the boys who would not stop texting them that they are actually trans women, when in reality they are cisgender. They are saying so to get rid of the people who keep annoying them. How ethical do you think it is? As most guys stop texting them after believing that the girl, they have been talking to is trans, this method is considered “successful”. But in what cost? Thinking that the boy will stop texting her once he is convinced, she is a trans woman, and using the prejudice and discrimination against trans women in this way for personal benefit. Is it acceptable? Isn’t that normalising and supporting a system in which trans women are not considered “real women”, and are acknowledged as “chick with a dick”? And when you ask them why they do it, why to lie about being trans, they say “they had to” like it is the only way. Even if it is the only way it still cannot justify the exploitation of LGBTQIA+ community.

I am not even close to finishing this. “The gay best friend” myth that goes around in media is disturbing, some girls thinking that having a gay side kick will get them free fashion advice etc. Reducing the value of the human being and acknowledging them as a contributing factor to their life, or some tool that can make their lives more interesting. Fetishizing LGBTQIA+ people is also very common and equally unacceptable. Those kinds of behaviours create an atmosphere in which being cisgender and heterosexual is absolute and the only “normal” state of a human being, and all other possible options are just the ways to add some colours to the main picture.

LGBTQIA+ are not here to make heterosexual people’s lives more comfortable or enjoyable, and any kind of use, abuse and exploitation of existing situation should be considered as homophobia and bigotry.

Hey, I am a boy and I am not gay. I would love to have sex with a girl, JUST NOT WITH YOU. Deal with it.

I am a boy, and I just don’t feel like it right now. Period.

(feel free to add to this list)

#LGBTQA #gay #gayguy #alex strangelove #sense8 #shameless #harrassment #media #mens rights

188 notes · View notes

bre95611 · 5 years

Text

Dean’s Biggest Fears

So while writing part 2 of my meta series about Anna, Cas, and Dean in season 4, I wrote a meta within my meta. I was rewatching “Yellow Fever” for the series and realized there’s just way too much content to try and put in one small section. So I cut a lot of it. And then the amazing @theirprofoundbond read through what I had and suggested that I just bite the bullet and make a mini-meta about just what all I dug into about “Yellow Fever”. So now, here we are!

There is another amazing meta the @drsilverfish wrote about the queer reading of this episode and I highly recommend you all check it out. You can find it here.

“Yellow Fever” is a treasure trove of subtext, showing everything that Dean is afraid of. Textually, it’s all fairly common fears, albeit some a bit more exaggerated than others. I believe it is important to look in to why the fears that manifested, did. The Sheriff, shown as a germaphobe before he develops symptoms of ghost sickness, is later shown using steel wool to try and clean his arms, showing us that the ghost sickness feeds on fears that are already there! Because of this, “Yellow Fever” gives us wonderful insight into the inner workings of the most emotionally constipated man ever. We can use this episode to find out what Dean is truly afraid of.

Chronologically the fears get worse, so we can see subtextually what Dean’s worst fear is, as the sickness progresses.

The episode opens on Dean running from the cutest little dog ever. We know, looking back on the episode as a whole, that this happen when Dean’s time is pretty close to up, maxing out the ridiculous factor of the manifestations of his fears. The further in the sickness he gets, the less mundane they seem. We also know that he was hallucinating then, perceiving that cute dog as a Hellhound, a point that is shown through the mirroring of the scene in season 3 when he is being chased through the woods and us hearing the snarling of a Hellhound. SO, the very first manifestation the audience sees of Dean’s fears is something that has to do with Hell. The biggest fear Dean currently has is Hell. What happened when he was there. What HE DID while he was there. It is shown time and time again throughout this episode.

Backing up to when Dean is first infected.

The first fear we see chronologically is the teenagers! Going off the inference that the sickness triggers your worst fears the closer to death you are, we can take this as a manifestation of Dean's least pressing overarching fear. So what do the teenagers mean?

Dean wants to walk on the opposite side of the street because of the teenagers. This man that has been to Hell and back, kills the things that go bump in the night, is scared of the youths. (Any New Girl fans?) This strikes me as a representation of his lost childhood. Dean never got a chance to be a teenage burnout, at least, not in the same way as a standard teenager. Yes, he dropped out, but not because he was partying. Because his DAD. Because of the lifestyle they had to lead in their line of work. So he is afraid of not having had a normal childhood, afraid of his dad’s influence on his life during his formative years.

Next is the snake!

I’m not going to go in to much detail on this one as its heavily mentioned in the above meta. (Seriously, go read it.) But just so we’re all on the same page, it’s the D. Dean is afraid of the D. Afraid to acknowledge his attraction to men. This establishes Dean's closeted sexuality as the most pressing fear thus far.

Dean driving like a grandma is hilarious. When Sam mentions he is going the speed limit. And then he passes the motel they are staying at because he isn’t going to make a left hand turn into oncoming traffic. “I’m not suicidal!” I think what we can take from this is Baby is his HOME. And Dean is afraid of doing something to damage that home. This ties into the teenagers bit as well, in regards to his childhood. That car has been more of a home to him than any other building throughout his life. And that love for Baby was definitely established during those formative years, the initials, toy soldier, legos in the heat vents, all things that happened when his DAD was driving (do we sense a theme yet, kids? It's all John's fault). Recently having lost that home, when he went to Hell, he feels that fear a little stronger, knowing how much it hurts to lose Baby, and not wanting to experience that again.

The scene where Dean states he didn’t go to their room because of it being on the fourth floor is lovely for giving us the gift of the “Eye of the Tiger” blooper, but other than that, it doesn’t serve much else of a purpose, besides reinforcing the fear of heights Dean has, something the audience is already aware of due to the fear of flying. However, I do think it’s humbling almost that this larger than life, macho dude is scared shitless of heights, such a common fear. I believe it also serves the purpose of believability for the GA, presenting another common, meaningless fear amidst the subtext.

Next we see where Dean’s hallucinations start.

This screams fragile masculinity. The fear is essentially that he isn’t allowed to feel fear, or any emotions for that matter. This is another fear that has a link back to his childhood, especially his dad’s role in that upbringing. John raised him as a soldier, masculine to a fault. No “softer” emotions are allowed, real men don’t cry. So the words in that book are taunting him and his conditioned inability to show his softer side and experience a full spectrum of emotions and reactions. John raised a man, not a baby. This manifestation also doubles as showing us the overlap in Dean's closeted sexuality and his militaristic upbringing. It makes a connection in the viewership's minds between the way Dean was raised and the reason he is literally in Narnia. I think it's moments like these that have created the "John Winchester's A+ Parenting" tag on AO3.

The creepy lumber yard is just that, creepy. I really can’t think of ANY other way this could be read, but by god did I try. The gun though! Another one that gives me a fragile masculinity feel. Considering this episode is fairly logical in it's order of the fears, that view is on track. This is a portrayal of his fear of being pigeon-holed into his father’s alpha male plan for his life. Guns have a very phallic feel to them as well, so something that as well, a continuation of that childhood/sexuality overlap. Afraid to act on his bisexuality and pursue men.

The CAT!

OMG one of my favorite scenes in the show cause god bless that prepubescent scream Jensen manages to pull off. But I think this is another one that hints subtextually at bisexual Dean. Cats are typically treated as a more feminine pet, so Dean is afraid to embrace his more feminine qualities, embracing his emotions, chick flicks, etc. More literally though, a euphemism for vagina is pussy. So maybe this is a manifestation of his fear of only ever being with women and not being able to experience things for the first time (Coughcoughseason10coughcough).

Next we have him freaking out about the badges. The fake FBI badges. Flustered Dean is just a cutie. Fear of getting caught being someone he’s not though? Fear of not being himself??? FEAR OF STAYING IN THE CLOSET.

Yellow Eyed Sam was creepy and made me very uncomfortable. But here is our first manifestation of his fear of Hell. AND his fear of losing Sam to Ruby. It ties in directly to his confusion over what to do in regards to Sam and everything that happened with Ruby during his time in Hell. Sam is telling Dean how he’s going to go back to Hell. Which we have established is WAY up there in Dean’s list of fears.

After that, we have Dean hallucinating Hellhounds coming for him followed by the Sheriff showing up and having black eyes. Guys. Dean hated Hell. He REALLY doesn’t want to go back, I can’t stress this enough.

Final thing we get is Lillith. Now drsilverfish’s meta has a really great queer reading of this scene. I absolutely love it. But another way that scene could be read is DEAN IS SCARED OF GOING TO HELL AGAIN. Like seriously guys, it’s at the forefront of his mind constantly. He is terrified of HIMSELF and what he did there. When Dean asks why him, Lillith says Dean knows why and that he should listen to his heart. Queer reading, Dean likes dudes. Non-queer reading though, he liked torturing souls in Hell, he was good at it. And that is something he doesn't know how to deal with. He’s afraid to be that guy again (which makes what Cas asks him to do in 4x16 even more fucked up, but that's for another time) and he’s confused as to how to move forward with that sort of knowledge about himself.

Summary of Yellow Fever, Cause I know I just threw a lot at you:

Dean’s fears are 3 pretty neat and tidy categories.

From least to most on a fear level:

1. Childhood/Daddy Issues

Dean fears what the loss of his formative years mean for him now as a grown man. He fears how the lost childhood, and what was basically the norm for him and his family due to his dad’s influence, has affected his development into an adult. This is the least pressing fear, as it is something Dean has been dealing with basically since he was a kid. I feel a lot of the initial introspection he might have had would have come into play back when the show canonically starts, with Dean having to face Sam, the biggest reason Dean didn’t really have a childhood.

2. Dean’s Closeted Bisexuality

There is a lot of bleed from Daddy Issues into this category, because of the influence John obviously had on Dean’s view of masculinity. The only reason this doesn’t rank number one in this episode is because its something Dean has been dealing with for a lot longer, and thus had time to adjust.

3. Hell

Dean is terrified of Hell. He’s afraid of what he did, who he is, who he became, and more than ANYTHING, he’s afraid to go back. This one gets top rank due to how fresh in Dean’s mind it is. At this point in the timeline of the show, Dean’s been topside for months at most, if not only weeks. We know he has been struggling to sleep and up until now hasn’t talked about it at all. The end of this episode is the first time we find out that Dean tortured souls in Hell, too. It puts repeat viewers in a cool situation where we see all these things Dean does in early season 4, desperately trying to save everyone he can, to make amends for what he did under Alastair’s tutelage. And it allows us to see early signs like the Lillith scene that depict Dean’s fear that all of this is happening to him because he was a bully in Hell, because he enjoyed hurting people. The layers of this show. Geez.

So hopefully here soon I will be able to get it together about get part 2 of the series finished soon. If you would like to read part 1 you can check it out right here, and I’ll update this one with links as I finish more of the series. Once again, thanks to @agusvedder for the gifs! I appreciate you!

Thanks everyone for reading! Let me know what you think!

#spn #supernatural #supernatural meta #spn meta #spn 4x06 #spn yellow fever #Dean Winchester #my meta

51 notes · View notes