#political lesbian rhetoric

[rollercoasterwords]

reading the first edition of whipping girl (2007) and getting to the last ch where serano talks abt her current observations on queer activism and then makes predictions abt what the future might look like

well she certainly was right wasn't she!!!

[stonebutchwritings]

"lesbians shouldn’t be seen as not-as-lesbian because they’re feminine" posts you will only see on tumblr dot com

[mango-nectars]

Kind of an unhinged take but people who say butch/femme pairings are heteronormative have never come across couples who enthusiastically identify as femme4femme. And don’t even get them started on how harddddd it is to be feminine in lesbian spaces because they’re not like other lesbians (see: “butch” aka masculine, aggressive, ugly, etc.)

[faultsofyouth]

I love watching countless people all disagree with the same thing for completely different reasons

[dieamoric]

my official stance on the word queer

it is exhausting how 2 people have directly approached me over this and more have indirectly commented on it. please leave me alone and stop breaking my dni.

it would be infinitely more meaningful and worthwhile to instead of harassing queer teens or adults on the internet for using the word queer, being queer, or not calling queer a slur, that you instead either scroll past, block these blogs, or crack open archive.org or another queer history library online or irl in order to learn about the actual history of the word instead of parroting stuff that came before you from people who revel in the fact that you fell for their rhetoric.

queer WAS a slur, and is still used as a slur in various places, mostly the south in the US. i acknowledge this and understand this better than others, apparently, because i also acknowledge that it has, in fact, truthfully, been reclaimed by the entire lgbt community decades ago.

i refuse to let my oppressors use queer against me, because it's my word, OUR word, and using it for OURselves is empowering us and OUR community, and refusing to let our oppressors use OUR word to hold power over us

i am not censoring the word, i am not calling it a slur, i will never trigger tag for it, the most you are going to get is me outright tagging the word or using it in my post. please use the post and tag blocking function in tumblr settings for it's intended purpose if it bothers you.

when i say that my and others usage of the word as an academic term and an identity does not affect you, this is what i mean. you have the options to reduce the 'harm' you are experiencing at hearing or seeing the word to zero, and yet you seek it out. by purposely triggering yourself you are self harming? as somebody who does this too, you need to practice some self control against your impulses. ask a friend for help stopping you before you doomscroll or engage perhaps. back on topic:

when i call my community queer and refer to 'queers' or queer people, i am referring to people who are also queer and do not mind the word, or even like it. to me the queer community is one and the same as the lgbt community, but if you want to alienate yourself because of hangups with that particular word, then that's your prerogative.

queer is a neat little word to encompass a broad range of identities and people, i do not purposely go out of my way to refer to people individually as it because i am well enough aware that some people do in fact do not want to be called it.

majority of the people i personally talk to are either okay with the word, or have enough understanding and comprehension skills that they are aware that i am not using it as a slur when i say the word at all in reference to our either shared identities, or different identities.

when i say that queer is not a slur outright i am, not to be redundant, referring to how the entire lgbt community have re-adopted the word from our oppressors in order to empower, uplift, and find comradery ourselves under that label.

i am NOT saying that it has never been a slur, or that it still isn't used in a derogatory way here and there, or that it hasn't been used towards me in a derogatory way, because all of these things are true.

i am however saying that your insistence that it is a dirty word that should not be used as an umbrella term for an entire group of people, or that it hasn't been reclaimed by this entire group of people, and instead only ever individually, is in fact terf rhetoric. or radfem rhetoric if you want to get extremely pedantic with me.

i block people on sight who tag things like "q slur" or say that "queer is a slur" unironically without a single critical thought of where that phrase even came from. i block people who sui bait, mock, or otherwise harass people who say the same thing as me. i block posts i don't like, as well.

i do not care to hear your opinion. i am exercising tools available to me on this website to curate my own space so i may experience things the way i want to, without coming across something that makes me feel bad or stresses me out. i encourage you all to do the same if you adamantly refuse to do your own research, get out from your echo chambers, or realize there is more to just terfism than just hating transfems and trans women.

do not make it my problem. because it isn't. this is MY blog and you can all block me if you don't like what i say on it.

[falinscloaca]

oops! accidentally fell into logical fallacies and biased projection common to lgbt+-community-identity/rhetoric-based-conservatism even in a post mostly criticizing myself for such kneejerk reactions! whuh-oh!

[crossdreamers]

Lesbian activist Sandi Toksvig:

//“I could weep. I don’t get it. It’s beyond me,” the former Great British Bake Off host said, “When the feminist movement started in the 60s and 70s, lesbians were often excluded, because we were told that we would make the movement less palatable.

“I have been excluded myself, so how could I do that to someone else? It fills me with rage.”//

[ohara-n-brown]

Hey everyone,

'The New ThoughtCrime' is an anti-trans community detransitioner essay

Just wanted to give a heads up to the FTM community on here that a user named @mewthoughtcrime is trying to repost the 'New ThoughtCrime' think piece from 2017 - tagging it with this such as 'trans man', 'nonbinary' and 'transandrophobia'.

However this blog fails to mention that the main author of said piece is a lesbian who considers herself a detransitioner. While there is nothing at all wrong with that -

the problem more comes from the fact that said author also believes the trans community is a cult.

This quote comes from the author's interview with Genspec - an organization that pretends to be trans supportive, while also believing trans kids are a myth, trans men are just confused teen girls, and pushing the book Irreversible Damage.

The author also believe in the idea of 'cotton-cieling' - a terf dog whistle that implies trans women intend to force lesbians to sleep with 'males who identify as lesbians'.

The think piece is NOT at all about trans men or transandrophobia.

It's about detransitioning from a woman who believes the trans community engages in 'thought reform' - in a way akin to cults.

The piece reads largely inspired by 'Irreversible Damage' - an anti-FTM shred-piece. This is basically J.K Rowling ideology.

They're in their right to repost whatever they want, especially if that piece of writing specifically spoke to them and other detransitioning folk.

However I do think it's incredibly disingenuous and sneaky to not include this information - or the true nature and intention of the work - in the Tumblr post, as the original author was very clear in stating so.

To post such a piece without tagging the detrans community is a disservice to them and a deliberate choice towards us.

The piece is not at all about transandrophobia - the OP is simply mistagging it to target particular groups - mainly, actively transitioning FTM who are looking for community.

This isn't to say you can't read and enjoy the piece, or connect to it. You absolutely can, it's about someones valid personal experience (well - some parts.) that's eloquently written.

What I do not support however is posting such material, purposely and vaguely mistagging it, while not explaining the contents, the context, and the intent of the author clearly.

I believe readers should always be informed about the source and intention of the writers of the information they received.

People should be allowed to make informed choices about what they read and involve themselves in - whether that be trans politics, or reading think pieces online.

That's why I am making this post.

'The New ThoughtCrime' is an Anti-Trans Community think-piece that targets trans men and lesbians by supporting TERF ideology.

Read with that information in mind. With the situation going on now with staff, I think it's important to be on high alert for indoctrination or misleading literature like this.

By all means, read if you like. I was just not at all impressed with the lack of transparency from @mewthoughtcrime when it comes to detailing the actual contents and source of that information.

It's one thing to call the trans community a cult - before turning around and releasing anonymous faceless think-pieces that you spread around without sources or actively informing others of its contents, in order to purposely get a demographic of people who do not wish to interact with you to unwillingly engage in your rhetoric.

As a essay that calls for 'transparency in the trans community' we can first start by lending some transparency to THIS essay.

Stay safe and stay informed y'all ✌🏾

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for not letting my partner meet my parents?

I (26 “F” (closeted nonbinary passing as cis for safety reasons)) am queer, formerly out as a lesbian which my parents knew about for the past 10 or so years. They didn’t accept me at first and it caused serious issues, but around 3 years ago they begrudgingly decided I wasn’t literal satan spawn and don’t need to go to conversion therapy.

The thing is, they’re still very viciously transphobic, and my partner (26M) is a trans man. I never updated my parents on my labels because I don’t talk to them often, and I know they will throw a hissy fit about the mere existance of a transgender person instead of judging him as a person after meeting him. My mom spouts all sorts of transphobic rhetoric whenever I see her because she’s been keeping up with our state’s politics, and she also posts it on facebook all the time. She’s more against trans women than trans men but she still says awful things about both. She’s a bigot.

We’ve been together for a year now. His parents are supportive of him and our relationship and I’ve had dinner with them about 6 times. Unfortunately, his parents have started seriously pressuring him into meeting my parents, which I’ve always shut down in conversation. They apparently told him that it’s a “red flag” that I won’t let him meet my family.

So he asked me why he can’t meet my parents and I said it’s because they’re bigots. It’s true, they will actually say offensive stuff TO RANDOM TRANS PEOPLE they see just existing and minding their own business in public. I don’t want to expose my partner to that. He says he can handle it, but I told him the idea of my parents saying awful things to him makes me angry and uncomfortable, to which he shifted the blame to “me being embarrassed to be with him”. He then brought up that my parents initially rejected me but then came around years later.

I then told him that my parents are physically abusive, when things get bad at home in arguments I often get things thrown at me / hit with stuff. Yes, I’m an adult, I know it’s fucked up and why I don’t visit them if I can help it. He didn’t understand and said to just “call the police” on them if they got physical.

Part of me feels like maybe I should just bite the bullet and bring him to meet my parents and then deal with the shitstorm that will follow, but it’s really avoidable stress that I don’t want to deal with so I stood my ground. My partner keeps warping it into a “trust” thing and refuses to see my side of the situation.

Adding this as INFO bc I feel like people would ask, my partner is visibly a trans man and cannot pass as a cis man or a cis woman in a way that my parents would be “fooled” by, nor would I ever ask him to do something like that for me.

[weepylucifer]

Disco Elysium if it was a Hollywood Blockbuster

(inspired by the trailer by @brainrotdotorg)

Harry has to have a glowup arc where he regains his faith in his job and ability to be a good cop. The police isn't criticized here apart from maybe some handwaves at "a few bad apples" rhetoric. In the climactic moment, the phasmid appears and tells him it is his duty and his destiny... to reform the RCM

Because we don't have time for a nuanced take on addiction in this 90-minute movie, the narrative just turns on a dime halfway through to portraying Harry's alcoholism as rugged and badass instead of pathetic, or he suddenly stops drinking when he gets his groove back, with no withdrawal effects shown. The whole thing about speed helping him be better at his job doesn't factor in; Harry drinks and does drugs because he's sad about Dora and there's nothing more to it. All he needed was to buck up and focus on being the best cop in all of Revachol

Klaasje is portrayed as a one-dimensional scheming femme fatale. Her backstory doesn't really come up. She's dumbed down so that Harry can triumph over her, and is also genuinely attracted to him for some reason, "I am Sherlocked" style

Ruby is either cut entirely, or she's genuinely a predatory lesbian and that's it. If the latter, she shoots herself in the head in front of Harry and Kim and they make a MCU-style "Well that happened" quip about it

No political quests! We don't have time for that. Actually, both communism and fascism are only mentioned once in a backstory dump as stuff that happened in a bygone era. If anything, the film ends up really riding for moralism by complete accident

The film makers don't really know what to do with Kim, so he gets reduced to a guy that stands around and delivers snarky one-liners

The Hardie Boys are in one short interrogation scene, not quite enough to make casual moviegoers care when half of them are gunned down

Fan-favorite characters such as Cindy, Cuno or the Speedfreaks can be seen once in the background of a group scene, but have no lines (you KNOW hollywood couldn't handle the Cuno). It's announced on the director's insta as "a little easter egg for eagle-eyed fans"

Joyce has a way more active role, but also her character turns into an utterly flat "milf girlboss" type who gives Harry and Kim direct instructions on what to do, Madame Director style. The movie writers pat themselves on the backs for being more progressive and feminist than the source material. Also she has nothing to do with the mercs, they just sort of... appeared. Don't think about it too hard! It's stressed repeatedly that they're "rogue agents" and it's really nobody's fault that they're there

Evrart is a corrupt mob boss and that's it. He will be played by a skinny actor in a fatsuit. He also doesn't help find Harry's gun, Joyce has someone retrieve it offscreen so she can gravely and meaningfully hand it to him just in time for the mercenary tribunal

The Deserter just kinda being a shitty sad old man would be too anticlimactic for our summer blockbuster, so he is rewritten to be some kind of evil mastermind. Maybe he even directly communicates with Klaasje and tells her what to do, again "I am Sherlocked" style

The tribunal absolutely does end with RCM backup triumphantly arriving to save the day, led by Jean who underwent a mini-arc offscreen about putting his differences with Harry aside because at the end of the day, they're both cops, and goddamn it, cops help each other. He dramatically takes the wig off and chucks it on the ground to signal his character growth, and everything

No homo-sexual underground thought. The Smoker on the Balcony is allowed to show up in one scene, where he flirtily waves at Kim and Harry. Kim nods at him. Disney's first gay character--

There's a moment where Kim talks to Jean, expressing doubt about Harry. Cut to Harry doing something goofy across the room from them. Jean briefly glances at it, shakes his head, turns back to Kim and says gruffly: "He's a loose cannon... but he gets the job done." This is supposed to be a good thing

[female-malice]

Anna Slatz is a homophobic religious woman who positions herself as the public face of American gender critical journalism.

She's also the editor-in-chief of Reduxx.

Florida has banned any reference to same-sex couples in schools. Tennessee just passed a bill that rolls back same-sex marriage rights. And the American gender critical movement is evolving into a blatant homophobic movement.

The current American gender critical movement positions LGB people as the perpetrators of trans ideology, not the victims. Make no mistake. They do not fucking care about LGB people. They will torch all gay rights if that's what they have to do to slow down trans ideology. Groups like Gays Against Groomers and LGB USA work overtime to try and calm this wave of gender critical homophobia. But the wave has now swelled into a tsunami.

If you're one of those lesbians who thinks homophobic rhetoric isn't about you, wake the fuck up. These homophobic women think that you're lower than dirt. No one who references Sodom and Gomorrah supports lesbians. Don't delude yourself. These women have private homophobic group chats where they call us dirty dykes behind our backs. The only reason they don't say it to our faces is because they're using lesbians as political pawns. But the minute we challenge them in any way, they'll start hurling homophobic abuse at us, too.

[spaceysoupy]

So apparently it’s that time of year again where I have to post about this.

On lesbianism, white queerness, and 2S identity

Text below readmore

I am a two-spirit. My identity is specific to my Tribe and Clan, and even more specific to my family. I am not a man, I am not a woman, and I am not nonbinary; I am not defined by what I am not.

I am a two-spirit and I am a lesbian. That's not debatable.

But I am not a non-man.

There's an idea of two-spirits that we are just the ethnic version of non-binary

We're not. The reason you're so comfortable calling us nonbinary is because your idea of queerness is centered around the binary&what you are not: you're not cishet, you're not the oppressor, etc

White queers like to speak about 2S identities constantly as if we are monolith. "It's just a gender" "it's not a gender"

"they're not trans" "they're not queer" "they don't belong here"

The community tries to decide for the individual and that's so weird to me.

So much of white queerness is inherently about exclusion.

You need strict labels to exclude the people you fear. You write your definitions around your fear of intruders and by consequence you exclude the people that need your support the most.

You need people to "prove" they are queer before you let them in. You're like a fortress and you let vulnerable people drown in the moat; ignoring that the real oppressors don't need to be a Trojan horse to do damage, ignoring they are actively burning down the castle.

It's very sad to me, because it's ultimately tearing the community apart even further.

I've never felt very welcome in white lesbian circles and they've never understood my experience of gender, but it's gotten worse in the past 5 or so years.

As TERFs start to revive gold star lesbianism and center hatred of men as their definition of lesbianism, you start to get these younger lesbians that don't know history that start to parrot the rhetoric. First it's "non-men loving non-men" then it's "you're too close to Man™"

For many two-spirit lesbians like myself, this is very concerning. White lesbians are historically not the ones targeted by radfems.

Now we've gotten to the point that there are people denying that lesbian is an spec (multispec) identity while including (white) nonbinary people

White nonbinary people (usually AFAB nonbinary people) are seen as woman lite and are welcome in white lesbian spaces while queer Indigenous people are considered dangerous because white lesbians can't understand their gender.

When did understanding become a requirement?

We're getting very dangerously close to "lesbianism is ONLY attraction to women" and very close to "lesbianism is only attraction to *a very specific type of (white) woman*" and I really need young white lesbians to read about political lesbianism so they can see this

I don't want to hear "not all lesbians" or "well then they aren't welcome" because every time this rhetoric goes unchallenged you are actively welcoming these people to continue it and make it more and more extreme. Yes, even the kind that seems to have nothing to do with racism

Almost all of your exclusionary rhetoric is based on the racist ideas of political lesbianism and I do not know why you all cannot see that they want to move goalposts. It wasn't just bi lesbians, it wasn't just he/him lesbians, it wasn't just nonbinary lesbians. It's a tactic.

It really feels like young lesbians are not only letting us go backwards, but encouraging it. And that's thanks in part to the historical racism of political lesbianism, but many of these people ARE old enough to think critically and talk to people who've been through this.

So far I've seen this in younger lesbian spaces; the ones with older generations (the ones that don't welcome TERFs) have been pretty welcoming even if not totally understanding, because they at least recognize that you don't need to understand someone's experience to validate it.

But I'm really concerned for the young Indigenous lesbians who don't feel comfortable around older people and are going to these younger lesbian spaces only to be indoctrinated with thinly veiled TERF rhetoric. It makes me very concerned for our spaces as well.

So I'll say again

I am not a non-man and I am not a non-woman. I'm not defined by what I am not. I do not ascribe to your binary-centric definitions of queerness. I experience queer attraction to women. I'm a lesbian. You do not get to use community to decide my individuality.

Thread by ~Alitsanosga

Pronouns: hi'a/vsgina/utseli/uwasa

[transvarmint]

And BTW, since that person blocked me after replying to me.

To claim that TE//RFs specifically only target transandrophobia subreddits is an outright lie, and a vile one at that.

It is an attempt to paint us as uniquely responsible for TE//RF aggression and infiltration of our community spaces.

I can guarantee you the number one place that TE//RFs actively try to infiltrate and manipulate are feminist spaces. Its kind of in the name! They spend the vast majority of the time trying to poison the well of feminist discussion with their rhetoric. And they have been doing so for decades, long before the internet even. In academic and activist feminist spaces.

The next most common place is almost certainly lesbian spaces. Political lesbianism has existed for decades. This is not new!!

But, no, of course, TE//RFs specifically "only" target spaces where trans men talk about our oppression. This is clearly our fault, and we're clearly responsible for the actions of violent transphobes.

[crossguild]

things about lovelace that are canon:

went to west point

played basketball in high school and college

basketball career cut short because of a car accident that shattered her knee

deployed in iraq

born & raised in brooklyn, NY

broke her wrist trying (unsuccessfully) rescue mason fisher in an asteroid shower

brilliant tactician, has problems with authority

described as 'both a workaholic and a prankster'

dad is a district judge, her mom was a marine

both a career military woman and a staunch liberal

the only thing about lovelace the fandom seems to talk about:

lesbian

also she's very hot

... like listen. my point here isn't that no one should headcanon her as a lesbian (i do most of the time as well!) or find her hot (i also do this), it's that it's just very obviously something primarily white fandoms do to characters of color, to project their own non-canon experience onto them rather than relating to the character on the things that are explicitly canon about them. it's also highkey fetishistic when all people can talk about with her is how she's a lesbian and they find her hot.

like, non-polish fans can relate to minkowski's desire to be taken seriously and fit in, which are things she actually has. people who aren't white men from texas are capable of relating to eiffel's self esteem and impulse control issues, which he actually has. people who aren't AIs are capable of sympathizing with hera's struggles with anxiety and disability, and extrapolate on her experiences on her terms, without projecting their own. what is it like to be a disembodied voice whose best option for 'friend' still doesn't hold you in high enough regard to not call you derogatory nicknames?

why are white fans so deeply incapable of taking isabel sofia lovelace as a character in her own right and analyzing her as she is without projecting their own experiences onto her?? why do i never hear anyone talk about how her relationship with her dad and her mom might have influenced both her decision to join the military and her political views? or about like. fucking literally anything about her that isn't predicated on their attraction to her? can we get maybe a mention of the all-but-diagnosed ptsd? that's a rhetorical question. we know why.

[androgynealienfemme]

"Although I know my identity to be femme, I am not saying that all lesbians are either butches or femmes, nor am I saying that they should be. Many lesbians seem to be perfectly comfortable being androgynous, being femmes with femmes or butches with butches, or just being "themselves." I am not trying to fit all of the lesbian nation into my paradigm; what I am trying to do is broaden the lesbian paradigm so that women like me not only fit but are celebrated in our own right, and not derided for not being real lesbians.

I am also aware that some lesbians change their identities depending on their lovers or the time of their lives. These roles are not static, nor should they be. I know a handful of butches who have gone femme and a few femmes who have gone butch, and I say mazel tov. I also know quite a few butches who, in the privacy of their own homes, like frilly teddies and makeup (butches in drag, or transvestite femmes?). And many, many femmes who are carpenters and softball players and who like butches on their backs in bed.

I also need to say that it is not only butches who attract me. All kinds of women attract me, and for that matter, femme women who have a particular attraction for me, because they validate me by being role models who teach me that femininity is not weakness.

We have limited our options by desexualizing our community. The rhetoric says that we develop our politics from our personal experiences, except, of course, when our personal experience is too sexy. In our effort to examine the sexual exploitation of women, we have denied our lesbian heritage, as well as our current options.

Discerning what is femme and what is butch is very difficult, since most of us who use these terms use them to define who we feel we are, and do not mold our behavior to fit existing stereotypic roles. I call myself femme because it describes who I feel I am, once I figured out it wasn't a bad word. It does not mean that I love to cook, or that I never wear pants, or that I can't paint a house or seduce a woman. It does mean that I love in the feel of my femininity, that I experience my essential self, sexually and socially, ad female.

I love to dress up pretty for my lover. I love the feel of lace on my body against the feel of strong woman hands. I love to curl up in my lover's arms. I love our oppositeness- her starched white shirts against my silky ones, her sneakers and loafers in the closet next to my girly shoes, her short, neatly trimmed nails against my longer polished nails. I love the power of my femmeness, the traditional feminine power to seduce and over-power her with a gentle touch."

"Femme-Dyke", Arlene Istar, The Persistent Desire, (Edited by Joan Nestle) (1992)

[molsno]

whenever I encounter terfs I tend to check out what the latest discourse in their circles is while I go on a blocking spree. I came across this post this morning and I can't help but laugh. like, first of all, "be nicer to straight women you mean lesbians" would be a ridiculous ask regardless of the circumstances, but it's especially funny in this case because op is exposing the blatant misogyny that terfs perpetuate.

why do you think it is that the hostility that these supposedly man-hating lesbians direct toward their heterosexual and bisexual community members is not aimed at the men themselves, but the women dating them? what does it say about them that rather than criticize these men's behaviors, their "criticism" consists entirely of extremely vile and misogynistic sexual assumptions that portray the women in these relationships as less intelligent and lacking in agency?

let me make it clear for you: terfs do not hate men. they hate women. they believe that women are biologically less intelligent and less capable than men. many of the lesbian terfs that this post is seemingly addressing are nothing more than political lesbians - straight or bi women who choose to only date women as a political statement. when these so-called lesbians are confronted with the fact that some of their counterparts DO date men, they fall back on disgusting misogynistic rhetoric that blames women for men's ills. there is no meaningful difference between this and saying a woman "had it coming" or "was asking for it" when she opens up about having been sexually assaulted by a man. that these people can claim to be feminists in any sense of the word is a laughable notion.