Tumgik
#oppression gatekeeping
dolokhoded · 18 days
Text
with greece legalizing gay marriage and everything i'm so tired of people diminishing queerness in greece to "oh your ancient greek ancestors would be proud ! alexander the great would be proud ! achilles would be proud sappho would be proud plato would be proud" etcetc.
queer rights progressing in greece wouldn't make our "ancient greek ancestors" proud because they had an entirely different concept of marriage than us, viewed women as objects to be sold and traded and only accepted homosexuality between men, or even more likely, a man and a literal underage boy.
gay rights in greece aren't benefiting some people who died a few thousand years ago or are Literally Fictional. greek queerness isn't just some ancient dionysian fantasy of feeding each other grapes and reciting poetry to each other by the sea. actual greek people who do benefit from this still exist. it doesn't honor some ancient guy who condoned slavery. it honors greek queer people who were out there protesting at the controversy this law raised with the church and actually made the effort to win this fight.
ancient greece isn't the epitome of queerness, not even close. absolutely in no way when it concerned exclusively just gay men. the epitome of queerness is the trans kid from my hometown who insisted on cutting their hair and dressing masculine even within their transphobic high school environment and strict orthodox family, or the woman who taught me programming who was married with children and realized she was aromantic fifteen years into marriage, or the gay punks who kept cops out of the university's anarchist hotspot.
greek queer people aren't history or mythology, and ancient greece isn't the queer utopia you make it out to be. we're still here, and we're fighting against the exact ideas our ancient culture perpetuated.
245 notes · View notes
Text
The audacity to be like "there's a problem with racism in transandrophobia discussions" while also unironically using the term "transandrophobia truther(s)"
670 notes · View notes
dasakuryo · 2 years
Text
The fact the Galactic Empire is an allegory of first world imperialism, particularly USAmerican imperialism, conveniently goes over some of you all's heads, doesn’t it? Lucas himself said he was criticising Nixon’s foreign policies in the OT, and the political themes present in both the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy cannot be divorced from the criticism of USAmerican imperialism and neocolonialism. 
596 notes · View notes
imspaceingout · 3 days
Text
Tumblr media
18 notes · View notes
disabledunitypunk · 6 months
Text
I wanna talk about a real problem in marginalized communities, but especially the disabled community.
The conflation of "privilege" with "oppression".
Here's two examples that I'm directly pulling from experience.
I am not intellectually disabled. I have fluctuating cognitive disabilities, but I have privilege over people with intellectual disabilities.
I also have significantly disabling chronic illness to the point where at times I have not been able to engage with hobbies due to being too sick. Disabled people who are less sick and more able to pursue activities they enjoy have privilege over me.
It's something that's not neat and simple, either. An intellectually disabled person who is able to engage with hobbies vs me? We would essentially both have privilege over each other on different axes. You can't then determine that one of us is ultimately generally more privileged than the other, because that's not how it works. Like if you have privilege x and they have privilege y, it isn't x-y=positive or negative privilege. You can't "solve" that equation because x and y aren't variables that can be substituted for number values.
So, first taking the example of hobbies - a recent controversial post we made that invited harassment. People were quick to tell us what our own experience was and that we weren't experiencing ableism - because they had had the privilege of never experiencing it. That was lateral ableism, and not okay.
Note: There may be people who DIDN'T have that privilege who were also saying the same - though everyone I saw talking about this specifically mentioned their ability to do hobbies, and that was who the main part of my response was directed at. However, I even specifically responded briefly to any people who were doing that - much more gently - to basically say that if they were being assimilationist out of fear that they didn't have to be, and to remind them that they aren't bad if they can't have hobbies.
On the other hand, way back when I first started this blog, I talked about reclaiming the r slur as someone who had significant trauma from being called it as a kid. I talked about how the reason I was called it was specifically because of my social issues due to my developmental disorders while being a gifted kid.
To make it clear - I was called the r slur for not understanding social cues and rules as a "smart" kid, because that's one of the things it meant to them. They weren't insulting my intellectual intelligence, but rather my social ability - at most, you could argue they were insulting my social intelligence - which having a low amount of WAS actually a feature of my disabilities.
I also spoke about how I wasn't reclaiming it to continue treating it as a bad thing, to insult even just myself, but rather to say "so what if I am? that's not bad". Y'know, the whole point of reclaiming.
I was told what my own experience was and that I was experiencing misdirected ableism because they were actually insulting traits I didn't have and therefore they were actually hurting intellectually disabled people but not me. Not because they had the privilege not to experience what I did - but because me having privilege was treated as the right to tell me I had never experienced the ableism they had.
They were treated not just as the experts on ableism against intellectual disabilities - which they are, of course - but also the experts on ableism against people who specifically DON'T have intellectual disabilities when it takes the same or similar forms as ableism against intellectual disabilities.
We all know that bigots don't wait to find out your correct identity before attacking you. We all know that there are identities commonly mistaken for others, that can set you up for repeated abuse over an identity you don't have. But what we refuse to acknowledge is that there are types of bigotry that can manifest identically in some ways for two different identities - and that anyone who experiences that bigotry is an expert on it and deserves to have a place in the conversation about it.
Someone with intellectual disabilities fundamentally cannot know that people without intellectual disabilities DON'T face the same kind of ableism on the basis of other disabilities that person DOES have because they have not ever lived that experience, just as, say, I couldn't say that an intellectually disabled person never faces specific kinds of ableism I face due to being a wheelchair user, because I am not intellectually disabled.
What I can say: "I face these types of ableism because of these disabilities and this is how they manifest."
What I can't say, because it is erasure and lateral ableism no matter my relative privilege: "You don't face this type of ableism for [disability I don't have] because it's exclusive to [disability I have] and any ableism that manifests that way is actually an attack on me."
Fundamentally, you cannot say that someone with a different disability DOESN'T face a specific type of ableism because you are not an authority on the experience of that disability. You are an expert on the experience of your disability. You cannot claim exclusive experiences because to do so, you would have to experience the disabilities you don't have while also not experiencing the ones you do. You would have to verify experiences that you simply don't have - in multiple places and contexts and presentations and as multiple people.
Oh wait, there's a simpler way to do that.
Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.
(Plaintext: Listen to people about their experiences of their own disabilities and the ableism they face for it.)
It's not ableist to say "no, you aren't the only disability that faces this ableism" or "no, it isn't targeted at you when it's aimed at me" or "actually, bigots also use [slur] to mean [definition specifically attacking my disability]". It is however ableist to tell people that because they have an axis of privilege over you, they can't talk about their own oppression on an entirely different axis because you've decided that experiencing similar oppression means you're the only person who experiences said oppression.
Or to put it more simply: Experiencing a type of ableism does NOT give you the right to speak over others when they say they experience it too for different reasons. Having something bad happen to you as a group does not give you proof that you're the ONLY group it happens to.
"X is caused by y, therefore x is ONLY caused by y" is quite literally a logical fallacy. It's called fallacy of the single cause (at least it's a nice obvious name, honestly).
This is the same discourse as cripplepunk. In fact, it's the primary motivator behind most slur discourse, and the reason why I'd honestly rather have blanket permission issued within oppressed groups I'm in* for everyone to reclaim in good faith** any slur that affects that group.
**What does "reclaim in good faith" mean? It means reclaiming only for self-usage, and only for self-usage specifically in a positive way - so no "ugh, I'm such a useless cripple", for example. True reclamation does require use of it against you/your disability in the first place, however, part of not being a cop about it is assuming that anyone who uses it in a positive sense for self-labeling has in fact experienced that. In short, it involves believing people about the oppression they explicitly say or imply through their reclamation that they've experienced.
*Note: I am specifically NOT a person of color or a member of an oppressed ethnoreligion/ethnicity, and recognize that dynamics of racial and ethnic oppression may be unique in some ways. However in disabled, queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces I do occupy, these are my feelings.
It is lateral ableism to tell another disabled person that they haven't experienced a type of ableism or didn't experience it due to their ACTUAL disability and therefore have no right to reclaim what was used to hurt them.
It is ableism to say "the bullet meant to shoot you, that hit you, was designed in part to hurt me, and therefore any time someone is shot with it, it was actually an attack on me. Hand over the bullet and never keep it or use it as you please again or you're basically shooting me with a different bullet." (For those that struggle with metaphors, the bullets are ableism.)
It's ducks saying that deer have no right to reclaim shotgun shells. Yes, slugs are more common than buckshot, but there's literally a type of the same exact kind of ammo designed for use on the deer too. In just the same way, some slurs and other forms of ableism are more typically used against one group but even have a (sometimes identical) variant specifically designed for use against other groups. "Mental cripple" and "retard" for sociodevelopmental disabilities are prime examples of this.
This is a wider problem in marginalized communities. "If you have any privilege at all, ever, you need to sit down and shut up about your own experiences. Only our least privileged members are the experts on any of our experiences. They make the rules about which of your own experiences you're allowed to talk about and what you're allowed to say about them." What's important to note, is that this is coming as much from the members with said privilege as the ones without.
And yes, this is an EXTREMELY insular community issue, but it's not mutually exclusive to the fact that large portions of the community DON'T listen to the less privileged ones about their own experiences! Just like the hobbies example (which, I know people may dismiss or cry 'false equivalence', but I want to again note that it primarily affects bedbound people who are too sick to do things they enjoy, and therefore less privileged by any metric).
I specifically referenced that example because it's exactly more privileged members speaking over less privileged members about the less privileged members' OWN experiences.
In fact, I'd say it's in fact a RESPONSE to that kind of being spoken over. It's an extreme pendulum swing in the other direction - "you need to shut up and LISTEN to us about our experiences". Which, if it stopped there, would be perfect! It's the part that follows it - "therefore, if we experience something, we're the ONLY people who are allowed to talk about it and the only people who even experience it".
I've seen time and time again, too, that even if you conclusively prove you experience something, the goalposts just get moved.
"Well, you experience it but not systemically."
"Okay, but you experienced it less."
"It didn't hurt you as much because it was meant to hurt me instead."
"Well, you're probably reclaiming it as an insult." (despite no proof of such, or even proof to the contrary)
"Well, if you experienced it systemically and it did hurt you and you experienced it just as much, it's actually because of [other identity that we begrudgingly acknowledge is affected] and not [identity that you say actually caused you to experience it] and it therefore isn't even [same type of bigotry] but [completely different type] instead."
"Well, even if you experienced it systemically as much as I did, it still hurts me more because it's about my identity and not yours, even though you were the one literally being attacked with it."
And if all that fails it's "no, that's not why you experienced it" or "no, you didn't experience that".
All examples I touched on earlier in this post, but still important to talk about specifically.
The person being hurt by a type of ableism, including slurs, is the person who they are being used against, period. It doesn't matter if they have "the right" disability. It doesn't matter what group the slurs or ableism is primarily used against. The bigots are TRYING to hurt the person they are specifically using the bigotry against, and that person is the one who ends up hurt by it. Full stop, no argument.
And if someone is hurt by a word, especially repeatedly, they have a right to reclaim it. Period.
At the end of the day, does this matter all that much? It's just community microaggressions, right?
Here's my feelings on it: I'm never going to let petty infighting get in the way of fighting for total disabled liberation. Just because some individuals are guilty of lateral ableism doesn't mean I won't fight for a world in which they face no ableism. It would be ableist of me to leave them behind over something like this. Not to mention, there's no need for anyone to be considered an authority on ableism in a world where there is none.
That being said, it is still a minor hurdle on the way to disabled liberation. If we police our own community and shut down discussions of ableism, how can we effectively fight for our right to not be policed or shut down by abled people? We're demonstrating that it's acceptable behavior.
You can argue all you want that abled people should recognize that it's different and they don't have a voice in the conversation - but what about those who are explicitly telling abled people that it's okay to shut down THESE disabled people talking about THEIR experiences because they're privileged invaders in the conversation and abled people should use their privilege over us to act as an even higher authority and stop us?
What about the conflicting messages of "abled people use your power over these disabled people to force them not to talk about the ableism they experience, but not these OTHER disabled people doing the same thing".
It's one thing to make a blanket statement to say "hey, if someone is actually attacking the validity of a disabled (or any marginalized) identity or talking over them about their own experiences, then shut that down". Saying a given marginalized identity doesn't exist or is inherently harmful is always bad. Talking over someone on their OWN experiences, when they are simply talking about things they've directly experienced, is always bad. I don't think it's the end of the world to say "use your privilege to shut down ableism" to abled people.
The problem is telling abled people that someone TALKING about their own legitimate experiences is bad and it's okay to shut it down. Abled people should not ever be given permission to do so - whether using their own judgment or just doing so on the word of disabled people.
Even besides that, though, it's still ableism, and lateral ableism is also a barrier in the way of total disabled liberation. It is an active threat to unity, to our ability to organize and demand change. We can fight to remove it from our communities while still focusing our energy primarily outward on fighting for liberation within the larger abled world.
Finally, it's an issue because it creates more hierarchies to solve existing ones. It says "instead of addressing the actual ableism, we're just going to flip it so you're the one experiencing it instead". It's like the so-called "feminists" that just want a matriarchy. It's not about creating a safer environment, it's about being the one to perpetrate the harm currently being done to you.
So, in cases where neither group has any real systemic power over each other, it doesn't even do that - it simply creates an environment where the original harm continues to be perpetuated while another new harm occurs. It devolves into a petty slap fight, distracting from actual liberation while also causing both parties to be hurt. That's not acceptable praxis. It's not praxis at all.
Even with the harm being small in scale, it's still not okay. Two injustices don't make a justice, just as two wrongs don't make a right.
This is very much something we need to address - in disabled spaces being my focus here - but also in queer, plural, alterhuman, and other marginalized spaces. And all of stems from the idea that "privilege" is the same as having the power to oppress someone. It's the idea that if you have an axis of privilege over another person with the same overall marginalized identity as you, that you are equivalent to being nonmarginalized compared to them and therefore disagreeing with them in any way about your OWN marginalized experiences is bigotry.
Functionally, it's that you're a bigoted privileged invader of marginalized spaces if you dare to have an opinion on a shared type of oppression. And speaking as a transfemmasc person, mayyyyyybe we should actually kill that rhetoric forever.
#ableism#privilege#oppression#reclamation#cw guns#fwiw it seems people who are MORE privileged are MORE willing and likely to harass over this#while less privileged people are more likely to block#and I cannot overstate that harassment is never acceptable#which is why we also have a hard rule about simply ignoring or blocking when we're the ones in a position of privilege#and that should be your rule too#(I mean engaging respectfully if you disagree is fine either way tbc)#just having been on both sides it would not be okay for me in the cases where I am less privileged to tell people what they experience#in fact that's the whole reason I created this blog#cripplepunk discourse led me to advocate for all neurodivergent people being able to reclaim cripple and being included in cripplepunk#if they wanted to be and found meaning in doing so#because 1. cripple is not a physical-disability-exclusive slur#and 2. neurodivergence can be physically disabling#so if there was a movement that centered physical disability that didn't gatekeep a universal disabled slur#people physically disabled by their neurodivergence should STILL not be told that they're wrong/lying about that experience#and should be let into the space on the basis of their neurophysical disabilities#also a lot of times the posts that are like 'able-bodied NDs do not derail' are talking about experiences that both groups experience#and it's not 'derailing' to say 'hey I experience this too for a different reason!' even if said reason is not at all physically disabling#I've seen SO MANY physically disabled people say 'neurodivergent people don't experience this!!1'#and just sat there going 'I experienced this as a neurodivergent person before I became physically disabled for YEARS#and continue to do so due at least in part to my neurodivergence now that I have a physical disability that could also contribute to it#anyway#mod stars#unitypunk
26 notes · View notes
crimesnewronan · 1 year
Text
basic white women who just got into ✨️witchcraft🔮✨️will be like "we are the DAUGHTERS of the witches YOU couldn't BURN!!" Meanwhile they're defending their cop uncle and their transphobic boyfriend and performing closed practices for the aesthetic, like girly you are the daughter of Abigail Williams herself, you just have fomo because you saw instagram posts from the devils sacrament, get a grip.
137 notes · View notes
artcinemas · 2 months
Text
naww like i'm seriously seeing y'all defend casteism and say reverse casteism exists like-
Tumblr media
11 notes · View notes
neuroticboyfriend · 1 year
Text
also please remember gaslighting is manipulation within a harmful power dynamic (ex. abuse, oppression) that makes the victim question their reality, sanity, or judgement. it is not a synonym for lying. it's also not a joke. ever.
gaslighting kills people, and destroys their sense of self & reality when it doesn't. it leaves them in constant danger due to their impaired ability to recognize threats for what they are - even things like getting sick. it also just feels plain awful.
someone having that kind of doubt so painfully instilled in them is not funny. stop using such serious words as punchlines.
28 notes · View notes
fanby-fckry · 2 months
Text
Ew.
Was trying to add my Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder to a med app thingy, and they didn’t have it in long-form, so I tried different abbreviations, including HSD.
Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder did not show up under HSD, but ya know what did? HSDD, also known as Hyposexual Desire Disorder. And that’s when I remembered that asexuality is STILL considered a fucking mental illness!
Fuck that fuck that fuck that!
I am mentally ill. I’m an insane bitch. I’m literally psychotic – as in I experience psychosis. Been on psych meds since I was 12. I’ve got diagnoses up to my ears and then some.
I can say with certainty, as a mentally ill asexual, that asexuality is NOT a mental illness.
Fuck, I want to punch something.
4 notes · View notes
devilfruitdyke · 10 months
Text
honestly i just need people to realize they dont have to be punk
7 notes · View notes
lennat2 · 3 months
Text
The right answer is the last one, by the way.
Do you understand? Do you? This is where the oppression Olympics will lead you: to isolation, or to unbeatable oppression. It will never give you any other choice.
2 notes · View notes
volvolts · 1 year
Text
In order to be nonbinary according to twitter is to look like a fucking fantasy elf
7 notes · View notes
thoughtportal · 2 years
Video
Gatekeepers hate social media especially tiktok because we can talk to each other directly and get beyond their propaganda
30 notes · View notes
marklikely · 2 years
Text
functionally zero difference between dudebros who get angry at a teenage girl for wearing a nirvana t shirt and tumblrinas having a meltdown that an extremely popular kate bush song was used in a tv show
21 notes · View notes
sureuncertainty · 1 year
Text
people in the notes of a queerphobic post attacking bi lesbians and blaming them for shitty men’s behavior being all surprised pikachu face when other exclusionists, acephobes, transphobes, terfs, etc. agree with it. like huh. maybe fucking examine why those types of people might be agreeing
4 notes · View notes
smashrandicoot · 9 months
Note
Hey did you know that poc especially trans poc can pick up different interpretations? Also why would you need to defend the kids movie? Defending it from who? The brown people?
I think there's been a misunderstanding. unless u are arguing nimona is about being racist against white ppl. bc I was vague-posting about someone who said the movie was enforcing the idea that reverse racism is real/can happen. there's absolutely nothing wrong with having a different interpretation, I was just annoyed by someone being stupid and deliberately misinterpreting the intended message. I can see how it came off now that 1) u didn't see the post I saw 2) I no longer have a fever of 102.
this is literally my follow up post I made immediately after. this is was I was really annoyed about.
Tumblr media
also how the fuck did you find my blog.
1 note · View note