#the conflation of gender and sex and sexuality

[variousqueerthings]

girl stroke boy (1971)

Jo: Sex isn't what you wear. It's not being face up or face down in bed. Nowadays it's simply a matter of personality. Mr. Mason you must see it all the time in school.

Laurie's father: Sex? It's not part of the curriculum...

Jo: Look, who gives a hell if it's a boy or a girl. We're all a bit of both aren't we, Mrs. Mason? I bet you don't get many absolute heteros in your school.

Laurie's father: [unintelligible]. Sometimes it's only when they get their insurance cards that you do discover what sex they are.

Jo: Doesn't it shock you that the sexes are coming closer together?

Laurie's father: Young people will go on experimenting, my dear, whether my eyebrows go up or down.

Laurie's mother: In my day the excitement was in guessing which man would ask you to dance, not in guessing which were the men. Nowadays I guess it's very chic to boast that some of one's best men friends are women. i find it extremely... decadent. Let me remind you it was my generation that produced Jacqueline Kennedy, Terence Rattigan, and Agatha Christie!

[bl4ckbox]

just had a realization that a lot of the hostility towards detransitioners is the idea that detransition is basically the same as being "ex-gay", running on the assumption that because sexualities are understood to be largely innate and fixed, so too gender identity must be some immutable, innate characteristic present from birth and not the social culmination of tens of thousands of cultural variables and personal life experiences

[copperbadge]

Hey Sam! Since it's currently AO3 donation time, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on it? I'm asking because you've written RPF and it's one of many "anti-AO3/anti-AO3 donations" people's favourite things to bring up when they're complaining about AO3 getting so many donations that it continuously obtains an excess of its donation goal whenever donation time rolls around? (Wow, how many times can I say "donation" in an ask?) Sorry if this question bothers you! I don't mean to offend or annoy.

Hey anon! Sorry it took a while to get to this, I don't even know if the drive is still going on, but the question came in while I was traveling and I didn't really have the time for stuff that wasn't travel-related. In any case, let's dig in! (I am not offended, no worries.)

So really there are two issues here and as much as some people who are critical of AO3 want to conflate them, they are different. While some criticism of AO3 may be valid, rhetoric against AO3 tends to misinterpret both in separate ways.

First there's the issue of what AO3 hosts -- RPF, yes, but more broadly, varied content that some people find distasteful or think should be illegal, which is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the archive and more broadly a dangerous attitude towards the concept of freedom of expression.

Second, there's the issue of AO3 generally outpacing its fundraising goals while not allowing monetization, which is a misunderstanding of the legal status of AO3 and to an extent a misunderstanding of philanthropy as a whole.

The longer I watch debates about content go on, the more I come to the conclusion that I was fortunate to have a teacher who really wanted to instill in us an understanding of free speech not as a policy but as an ongoing dialogue. It's not only that freedom of expression "protects you from the government, not the Justin" as the meme goes, but also that freedom of expression is not a static thing. It's an ongoing process of identifying what we find harmful in society and what we want to do about it.

Should the freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater be restricted? Should the freedom to yell slurs at drag performers? Should the freedom to teach prepubescent kids about gender, sexuality, and/or safe sex? Should the freedom to wear a leather puppy hood at Pride? Who gets to say, and why?

I was nine when my teacher did a unit on freedom of speech and the intersection of "harm prevention" and "censorship", which is (and should be) a discussion, not a set of ironclad rules. This ambiguity has thus been with me for over thirty years, and I'm comfortable with the ambiguity, with the process; I'm not sure a lot of people critical of AO3's content truly are. Perhaps some can't be, especially those affected by hate speech, but RPF is not hate speech. It's just fiction. Or is fiction "just fiction"? This is a question society as a whole is grappling with, although fandom seems to be a little out ahead of society in terms of how explicitly we discuss it.

The idea that prose can incite violence or cause harm is both valid to examine (witness the rise of fascism on the radio in the 20s, on Facebook and Twitter in the past ten years; they're very similar processes) and a very slippery slope. Because again: who decides what harm is, and what causes it, and what we do about it? Our values align us with certain beliefs, but those are only our values, not universal truths. So AO3 is part of the ongoing question of harm and benefit both to society and individuals.

AO3 itself, however, has a fairly defined policy that it is not meant to police content; it is an archive, not a bookstore or a school board. AO3 refines its TOS and policies as necessary, but the goal is always open access and as much freedom of expression as possible, and if that's uncomfortable for some people then that's a discussion we have to have; ignoring it won't make it go away. But it has to be a discussion, it can't be a unilateral change to the archive's TOS or a series of snaps and clapbacks, and I don't see a lot of people ready to move beyond flinging insults. Perhaps because they were taught a much more binary view of freedom of expression than I was.

So, self-evidently, I support AO3 and I don't have a problem with RPF. Whether other people do is something we're going to have to get to grips with, and that's likely to be a process that is still going on when most of us are dust. I'd rather have a century of ambiguity than a wrong answer tomorrow, anyway.

But whether AO3 hosts RPF is truly a separate issue from its donation drives, because it's a criticism some people level at the site which exists whether it's fundraising or not. So people can criticize AO3's open policy and they can give it as a reason not to support the site, but it's just one aspect of the archive and the fundraising as a whole should be examined separately.

I think AO3's fundraisers are deeply misunderstood (sometimes on purpose) because even people who are anticapitalist get a little crazy when money gets involved, and this is, to fandom, a lot of money -- a few hundred thousand, reliably, every fundraiser. To me, a fundraiser that pulls in three hundred grand is almost quaint; my current nonprofit pulls in better than ten million a year and my previous employer had an endowment of several billion dollars. At my old job I didn't even bother researching people who couldn't give us a hundred grand.

On the other hand, AO3 is an extreme and astounding outlier in the nonprofit world, because basically it's the only one of its kind to work the way it does. It is entirely volunteer-run on the operational side (ie: tag wranglers, coders, lawyers, etc) and has no fundraising staff (gift officers, researchers, outreach officers) as far as I'm aware. To pull in three hundred grand from individual one-time donations, without any paid staff and without even a volunteer fundraising officer? That's insane. That doesn't happen. Except at AO3.

What people misunderstand, however, is the basic status of a nonprofit, which is a legal status, not simply a social one. (I'm adding in some corrections here since it gets complicated and the terminology can be important!) The Organization for Transformative Works, the parent of AO3, is a nonprofit, which indicates how it was incorporated as an organization; additionally it is registered federally as tax-exempt, which carries certain perks, like not paying sales tax, and certain duties, like making their financials transparent to a certain extent. (Religious nonprofits are exempt from the transparency requirement.) If you're interested in more about nonprofits and tax-exempt status a reader dropped a great article here.

Nonprofits, unlike for-profit companies, cannot pay a share of their income to stakeholders. Nonprofits don't have financial stakeholders, only donors. They can have employees and pay them a salary -- that's me, for example -- but if a nonprofit pulls in $10M in donations, my salary is paid from that, I don't get a percentage and nobody else does either. That's what it means to be a nonprofit -- the money above operational costs goes back into the organization. The donations we (and AO3) receive must be plowed under and used for outreach, server maintenance, further fundraising, services expansion, et cetera. You can see this in the 990 forms on Guidestar or ProPublica, or in their more accessible breakdowns on Charity Navigator. Nonprofits that do not put the majority of their income towards service provision tend to get audited and lose their nonprofit status. So nobody's getting paid from all that money, and the overage that isn't spent goes into what is basically a savings account in the name of the nonprofit. (I'm vastly simplifying but that's the gist.) Using that money for personal purposes is illegal. It's called "private inurement" and there's a good article here about it. The money belongs to the OTW as a concept, not to anyone in or of the OTW.

So the biggest misunderstanding that I see in people who are mad at AO3 fundraisers is that "they" are getting all this money (who "they" are is never clearly stated but I'm pretty sure people think @astolat has a special wifi router that runs on burning hundred dollar bills) while "we" can't monetize our fanfic. But "they" get nothing -- nobody even earns a salary from AO3 -- and you can easily prove that by looking at the 990 forms they file with the government, which are required to be made public. You can see the most recently available 990, from 2020, here at Guidestar. Page seven will show you the "highest compensated" employees, all of whom are earning zero dollars or nonmonetary perks (that's the three columns on the right).

Either AO3 is entirely volunteer-run or someone's Doing A Real Fraud. The money the OTW spends is documented (that's page 10 and 11 primarily) and while they may pay for, say, the travel and lodging expenses of a lawyer going to DC to defend a freedom-of-expression case, they don't pay the lawyer for their time, or give them a cut of the income.

Despite what you've read, the reason "we" can't monetize our fanfics on AO3 has nothing to do with the site being the product of volunteer handiwork or AO3 having it in their terms of service or it being considered gauche by some to do so; it's because

IT'S ILLEGAL.

I cannot say this loudly enough: It is against the law for a nonprofit to be used by its staff, volunteers, or beneficiaries to earn direct profit from the services provided by the nonprofit.

You can be paid to work at one, but you cannot side-hustle by selling your handmade friendship bracelets for personal gain on the nonprofit's website. If the nonprofit knowingly allows monetization of its services, it can lose nonprofit status, be fined, be hit with back taxes, and a lot of other unpleasant bullshit can go down, including prosecution of those involved for fraud. If you put a ko-fi link on your fanfic, you are breaking the law, and if AO3 allows it, they are too.

Okay, that was a sidebar, but in some ways not, because it gets to the heart of the real complaints about AO3 fundraising, which is that people in fandom are sick or unhoused or in some form of need and other people in fandom are giving to AO3, a fan site that is financially stable, instead of giving to peoples' gofundmes or dropping money in their Ko-Fi or Paypal. And while it is a legitimate grievance that there are people who are in such desperate need while we live in an era of unprecedented abundance, that's not AO3's fault. AO3 doesn't solicit actively, there's no unasked-for mailings or calls from a gift officer. They just put a banner up on their website, and people give. (Again, this is incredibly outlier behavior in the nonprofit world, I'd do a case study on it but the conclusion would just be "shit's real, yo.") You might as well be mad that people give to their local food bank instead of someone's ko-fi.

You cannot lay at AO3's feet the fact that people want to give to AO3 instead of to your fundraiser. That's a choice individuals have made, and while you can engage with them in terms of why they made the philanthropic choices they did, to blame an organization they supported rather than the person who made the choice to give is not only incorrect but futile, and unlikely to win anyone over to supporting you. We know from research that guilt is not a tremendous motivator of philanthropy.

It is also not necessarily a binary choice; just because AO3 gets a hundred grand in $5 donations doesn't mean most of the people giving don't also give $5 elsewhere. I support the OTW on occasion, and I also fundraise for UNICEF and the Chicago Parks Foundation and BAGLY and others, in addition to giving monthly to several nonprofits that I have longterm relationships with -- my alma mater, the animal rescue where I got the Cryptids, my shul. And I give, occasionally and anonymously, to fundraisers that pass through Radio Free Monday, which are mainly individuals in need, because I was once in need and now I pay it forward. These are the choices I have made. Nobody twisted my arm. I respond poorly to someone making the attempt to do so by attacking places I've given.

I think the upshot is, after all of this that I've written, that we cannot begin to come to grips with questions of institutional inequality in philanthropy, or freedom of expression and censorship, until people actually understand what's going on, and too few do. So all I can do is try and explain, and hopefully create a forum for people to learn and grow when it comes to charitable giving.

Archive Of Our Own and the Organization for Transformative Works are products of our community and as that community changes, we will necessarily continue to re-evaluate what aspects of it mean and how AO3/OTW express the community sentiment. I hope that the ongoing discussion of support for AO3 also leads to people learning more about their philanthropic options. But criticizing AO3 for fundraising by attacking it for fulfilling one of its stated purposes is silly, and attempting to guilt people into giving in the ways one thinks they should give rather than how they do give is just going to make one extremely unlikable.

As members of this community, we have to be a part of the push and pull, but it's difficult to do that competently in ignorance. So, I do my best to be knowledgeable and to educate my readers, and I hope others will do the same.

[ink-flavored]

🏳️‍🌈75 Question Pride Month Ask Game🏳️‍⚧️

Happy Pride Month! Celebrate by delving into your OC’s relationship with their queer identity—everything from sexual and romantic orientation, to gender, to intersexuality. And on that last point, I want to give a big shout-out and thank you to the intersex writers who gave me advice on how to structure the intersexuality portion of this game! Remember to send an ask to the person you reblog it from to make sure everyone gets to play!

🌈General✨

Is “queerness” accepted or rejected in their society? Is it a concept at all?

Are queer people expected to “come out” in their society? If so, when did your OC come out? If they haven’t, why not?

Have they come out about one aspect of their identity, but not another? Why?

When did they realize they were queer? Did they discover everything at once, or one identity at a time?

What did they do to explore their queerness? Have they tried to explore it at all?

Were they supported and encouraged to explore their identity?

Are many of their family members queer?

Are many of their friends queer?

Did it take them a long time to figure out which labels they prefer? Are they still searching for the right fit?

Have they experienced marginalization for their queerness?

Do they exist in a supportive community of other queer people?

Do they consider queerness to be a big part of their identity, or as banal has having red hair?

Do they try to hide their queerness on purpose? Why?

Are they as loud and proud about their queerness as possible? Why?

What do they love most about being queer?

❤️Romantic Orientation🩷

What’s their romantic orientation? Do they use multiple labels for it?

Do they enjoy dating or prefer being single?

Are they in a committed relationship right now? Queer-platonic or romantic? Both?

If they’re single, have they ever been in a romantic or queer-platonic relationship?

How would they personally define “love”?

How would they personally define “romance”?

Are they loveless? [for an aromantic perspective on lovelessness check out this essay]

Are they polyamorous? Do they consider it an orientation or a preference?

If they’re alloromantic, have they ever explored aromanticism? How did it go?

Do they enjoy reading, watching, or otherwise engaging with art about romance?

How has their romantic orientation shaped their interactions with peers and family?

Does their society conflate sex and romance? How has this impacted them?

Does their society enforce amatonormativity? How does this impact them?

What do they love the most about their romantic orientation?

How does their romantic orientation interact with their other identities?

🏳️‍🌈Sexual Orientation❤️‍🔥

What’s their sexual orientation? Do they use multiple labels for it?

What is their society’s view on sex and sexuality?

What is their personal view of sex and sexuality?

What do they personally think about sex?

How important do they consider sex in their life and in their relationships?

What kinds of people do they find especially attractive? What’s their “type”?

Would they ever consider a sexual relationship with someone they aren’t attracted to? Under which circumstances?

If they’re straight, have they ever explored a different sexuality? How did it go?

Is their society open about sex, or incredibly puritan? How has this impacted them?

Does their society enforce heterosexuality as “correct” or “normal” with all other sexualities being deviant? How has this impacted them?

Is their sexuality seen as especially perverse or inherently sexual? How does that impact them?

Is their sexuality infantilized or seen as “too pure for sex”? How does that impact them?

Are they sex-repulsed, sex-neutral, sex-favorable? At all times, or does it fluctuate?

What do they love most about their sexual orientation?

How does their sexual orientation interact with their other identities?

🏳️‍⚧️Gender Identity⚧️

What’s their gender identity? Do they use multiple labels for it?

What pronouns do they use? Have they tried out a ton before settling on these? Are they still trying things on?

How would they personally define “gender”?

How do they prefer to present?

Do they care about their gender identity “matching” their presentation in the way their society expects? Why or why not?

If they’re trans, do they plan on medically transitioning? In which ways? If not, why not?

If they’re trans, do they plan on socially transitioning? In which ways? If not, why not?

If they’re cis, have they ever explored the idea of transness? How did it go?

If they’ve detransitioned, what made them choose to stop? Are they more content in their gender now, or still deciding what’s right?

Does their society conflate sex and gender? How has this impacted them?

Does their society impose a gender binary? How has this impacted them?

Does their society impose gender roles on people? How has this impacted them?

How is transness viewed in their society?

What do they love most about their gender identity?

How does their gender identity interact with their other identities?

💛Intersexuality💜

For more information about intersex variations, check out the InterACT Intersex Variations Glossary

How do they feel about being intersex, if any way at all?

How would they personally describe or define what “being intersex” means?

How long have they known about their intersexuality?

How was their childhood impacted by their intersexuality, if at all?

How was their adolescence impacted by their intersexuality, if at all?

How has their adult life been impacted by their intersexuality, if at all?

How has being intersex shaped their interactions with friends? Family? Intimate relationships?

How often do they talk about their intersexuality?

Does their society conflate sex and gender? How has this impacted them?

Does their society enforce sex binary? How has this impacted them?

Does their society impose gender roles on people? How has this impacted them?

How does their society view intersex people in general?

Is there anything else about their culture that makes being intersex easier? More difficult?

What do they love most about their intersexuality?

How does their intersexuality interact with their other identities?

[so-i-did-this-thing]

Hey trans Florida folks - things suck, but I want to make sure y'all have more info so you can better gauge the urgency and expected risk for a new bill.

This is another long post, but please read because a lot of folks are in a huge panic at some misleading info.

You've probably seen this by now:

This is misleading. Be incredibly concerned at the path we're on because it is bad, even plan to leave the state (I am), but drag isn't punishable by the death penalty:

From the Twitter screencap: "Florida has now: 1) made drag in public illegal as a 'sex crime against children'."

Misleading. SB 1438 censors drag in front of minors w/vague, subjective language and threatens misdemeanors, fines, and license revocation for violations. This is meant to scare businesses, and even cities. We are already seeing Pride parades canceled in Florida in response:

From the Twitter screencap: "2) made sexual crimes against children punishable by death"

Too broad. Sexual battery against a child is being made into a capital felony (aka, punishable by death) in the currently proposed SB1342 .

The bill says:

"A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony".

If we want a definition of "sexual battery" itself, we can jump to Florida statues at:

https://m.flsenate.gov/statutes/794.011

"Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or female genital penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or female genital penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose."

Also of note in this statute:

"Serious personal injury” means great bodily harm or pain, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement."

I am not a lawyer, but to me, this looks like less of an attack against trans people for existing (via conflation with anti-drag bills), and more a way to target those providing gender affirming care -- healthcare providers or even a child's affirming guardians.

Many states are already trying to set up "aiding and abetting" laws (from the anti-abortion playbook) to punish anyone offering any kind of gender affirming care (from general therapy to vocal coaching) to a trans kid.

Florida might be hoping someone applies the "injures the sexual organs of" component of SB1342 to gender-affirming puberty blockers. Yeah, it's a stretch, but I would not be surprised to see someone try it.

Because we are already seeing the HHS committee consider sending subpoenas to gender-affirming clinics:

"House Speaker Paul Renner said he wants the House to examine how the organizations adopted their recommendations. He questioned whether the guidelines were the result of scientific analysis or whether “the integrity of the medical profession has been compromised by a radical gender ideology that stands to cause permanent physical and mental harm to children and adolescents.”

Emphasis mine. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I would not be surprised to see someone try to hold a gender-affirming clinic accountable for "sexual battery" against a child.

All these separate actions paint a grim picture.

Back to our Twitter screencap: "3) Began allowing death penaltymsentencing at at 8-4 vote instead of a unanimous vote"

Yes, true. This one is scary all on its own because it makes it that much easier for the DeSantis administration to target political enemies.

Everyone should be terrified of this:

Back to making child sexual battery a capital felony & SB1342:

Could we eventually see bills proposed that further broaden - via deliberately vague language or otherwise -what kind of "sex crimes" are punishable by death, thus fully targeting trans people?

For sure, we will absolutely see fascists try to get away with whatever they can and I hope we see more resistance against what is happening now to prevent the escalation towards genocide.

But this specific bill isn't targeting drag and it's important we understand the current threat landscape so we can plan accordingly.

Like. I'm still working on my own plan to flee Florida asap (I am a trans man) but I don't feel at risk of the death penalty just yet, so my "leave asap" is "sell the house in a month" instead of "grab the bugout bag and get in the car NOW".

It is very, very important to understand the threats we face so we don't make rash decisions that could have permanent consequences for already vulnerable people. We need to plan and act on plans with haste, but afford ourselves every opportunity to make decisions with as much accurate information as possible.

What's the status of SB1342?

As I type this, still with the senate, but check for updates at the link below. If passed, it would enact October 1, 2023.

In closing

Again, be careful, be safe, be informed. I am not a legal expert; I'm just a little guy, but the risk landscape has enough threats trans people need to respond to without us thinking drag is currently eligible for the death penalty.

Every trans person in the United States, not just Florida, should be watching what is going on across the country and noting how all these bills connect and escalate. And what could become blueprints at the federal level.

Keep hope, but plan for contingencies that could threaten your job, your housing, your liberty, and possibly even your life. Watch the news, watch your local bills, and do your best at figuring out when you need to break that emergency glass.

My biggest advice to be better informed is to learn where your state posts bills and look them up when they hit the news:

Get used to reading bills and noting when they would take effect

Learn how to follow a bill on its way into law - the stages are usually through various committees, then both the House and Senate can file amendments and ultimately vote in separate sessions to approve, then the governor signs it into law

Understand that a lot of reporting on bills can make it sound like it has passed into law, when it might still just be in a committee.

Not all bills pass, and when they do, not all pass as originally proposed. (This can work for or against us.)

Follow trans political commentators like Erin or Alejandra for more context

Again, it all sucks right now and I don't want to underscore the danger so many transgender Americans are already in (and lord knows I am very lucky to be able to leave Florida). But knowing what we're up against is one of the few defenses we have right now.

I have more advice for trans Floridians here.

[hadesoftheladies]

queer theory is actually a nightmarish frankensteinian creation of postmodernism, and post-modernists philosophers have frequently and explicitly been pro-pedophilia, because this is a logical consequence of what post-modernism says is true: there is no (epistemic) certainty or stable meaning.

when my conservative parents tell me they basically associate "lgbtq" with "maps" and pedophilia, they have reason to do so, given how "queer culture" is fundamentally a creation of post-modernist values, and post-modernist estimations of sexuality. everything is fluid, no binary exists, no meaning is fixed, so there are no defining lines, which means lines cannot actually be crossed. homosexuals can be bisexual, man and woman are interchangeable meaningless terms, and attraction to children is just one of the many ways sexual fluidity is expressed in humans, a benign and normal thing that should be released from modernist moralistic confines

that is queer philosophy, and it is actual queer culture. so not only are LGB folk being told they should celebrate the reclamation of an awful slur that explicitly others them as "perverted" and "strange", but now they are told to embrace queer culture (which means queer identity and philosophy) which not only declares their reality as abnormal and unreal (same-sex attraction is myth, since there is no such thing as sex and attraction is fluid), but also defines them explicitly with sexual perversions like pedophilia and bdsm: which IS EXACTLY WHAT HOMOPHOBES BELIEVE ABOUT THEM.

when queer culture is predicated on subjective feelings of identity needing to be validated, celebrated and "set free" from modernist (read definable, material and epistemological) structures, then the distaste for MAPs from queer folk doesn't mean anything, because even if MAPs are publicly rejected by queer culture, they are embraced and validated by queer theory and post-modernist philosophy.

what is doubly baffling to me is how the lgbtq+ community has tainted a movement for gay rights, you know, people who are being killed and ostracized for being same-sex attracted. not only nullifying their experiences and struggle in being same-sex attracted, not only associating their neutral, normal orientations with perversions and kinks, making something neutral political . . .

but they have also actively decentered a movement for homosexuals and bisexuals in order to accommodate identities that have NOTHING to do with that struggle or fight. intersex conditions, gender dysphoria, and asexuality have nothing to do with the oppression LGBs have faced for their sexual orientation and gender nonconformity, their culture of genderlessness. the idea that men and women can wear and present however they want, love and be attracted to the same sex, without it altering their material status.

EVEN MORE INFURIATINGLY, queer politics has offered almost ZERO challenges to patriarchy. by throwing out definitions, throwing out distinctions, it has relegated the essence of oppression to an individualistic, liberal fantasy that is powerless to change the system, and so can only grant us "spicy" patriarchy. dominance and submission, patriarchal inventions, are now cool kinks that every couple should try. gender is now open access (but still necessary), so men can wear heels and still call women slurs and violently harass them. transmen can go by he/him and still be refused abortion access! gay people are gender fetishists, not sinners. nothing has structurally changed, it's just we have cool names now! :)

so now LGB and women all over the fucking world are relegated to this homophobic misogynistic hell whether we turn to the left or right, and when we speak up about it, conservative homophobes and misogynists confuse us with liberal perverts, and liberal homophobes and misogynists conflate us with conservative sadists.

the structure doesn't change. there is no actual progress. like, same-sex right and women's movements all over the world have suffered for this. because white liberal westerners wanted to play around with words and have that count as activism.

i fucking hate queer theory and politics. i fucking hate how rich western whites shit on every human rights movement while capitalizing on them.

[paperlunamoth]

"No one is conflating gender with sex!"

Yes you are. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you would say you were "masculine to feminine" and not "male to female." If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be using the term "assigned male/female at birth" to decribe the gender assigned to a person because of their sex. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be pushing to have the words "male and female," which are the only terms we have to refer to sex specifically, redefined to mean "person who identifies as belonging to the masculine/feminine gender." If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't so consistently act as though masculinity is what makes someone male and femininity is what makes someone female. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be saying that transgender people need access opposite sex hormones. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be calling surgery to make your genitals more resemble those of the opposite sex gender confirmation surgery. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be bothered by your legal sex being different from your gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be demanding access to single sex spaces on the basis of your gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be upset when homosexual people don't want to sleep with you because of your sex and not your gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't consider sexual dysphoria to be part of being transgender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you would be distinguishing between people who are transsexual and people who are transgender, and you would have invented a separate word by now for people who are both, instead of using "transgender" to mean both or either. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be pushing the idea that sex is nonbinary, arbitrary, debatable, and a social construct in order to make how people think about it more closely resemble how they think about gender. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then you wouldn't be claiming that gender identity is an innate and immutable part of a person's biology present at birth, just like sex, despite the fact that gender is a social construct and so by definition can't be inherent to a person based on their biological traits. If you weren't conflating gender with sex, then when you argue that some people have the brain of the opposite sex, and thus are neurologically a different sex from what they are physically, you'd be using that to legitimize transsexualism and not transgenderedness (and even if we could easily and reliably identify the sex of a person's brain, that should be assumed to tell us nothing about their gender identity, since sex and gender are different things, right?). If you didn't equate gender with sex, then you wouldn't go to such great lengths to obscure the fact that most binary-identifying transgender people are also transsexual, that they want to belong to the opposite sex and not just the opposite gender, and that they want to adopt the gender associated with the opposite sex specifically because it would make them feel more like they belong to that sex.

It doesn't how matter how often or how vehemently you claim otherwise, you absolutely do conflate gender with sex, and it is one of the main reasons we take issue with your ideology in the first place. Women around the world and throughout human history have fought and bled and died for the idea that femininity, or a "feminine essence," is not what defines what it means to be a woman, for the idea that people of the female sex are oppressed on the basis of their sex and deserve not to be oppressed on the basis of their sex, and you people spit and piss on their graves and call feminism "regressive" while waving a flag with pink stripes for girls and blue stripes for boys.

[foone]

Alright, listen up:

We need to stop with the anti-rooting attitude for brainpals, alright? You're just doing mnemonocorps job for them. Cut out the discourse about people with modded brainpals, for TF's sake.

(scifi worldbuilding by way of fictional Tumblr discourse under the cut)

There's tons of valid reasons for by people would hack their brainpals! Testing new memory/skills without paying for a dev kit, piracy of skills (and do not @ me with that "but you're stealing from the original skill creator!" bullshit. All the legit skills on the market now are from people who did work for hire by mnemonocorps, and THEY ALREADY WERE PAID. It's only mnemonocorps that is losing money!), home ptsd/cptsd/jptsd treatment, the list is endless.

And before you jump into the comments, YES I KNOW PEOPLE DO SEXUAL MEMORY PLAY. People do every kind of weird shit, name me a technology that no one has used for sex in some way? Hell, the first topless photo was taken within a week of the invention of the daguerreotype. But we need to be adults here, okay? These things can be simultaneously true:

1. People do memory play

2. No kids have memorypals

3. The vast major of memory play is NOT VP.

Mnemonocorps has done a lot of work to try to keep people from using brainpals for memory pal, with their artificial limits on how much you can block at once, but that's fundamentally an over reaction to the negative press from the whole VP scandal. The news loves a juicy story like "people are using a new technology for weird sex shit" because their readers/viewers are always interested in Weird Sex Shit, either because "ooh, sexy!" or "BAN THIS FILTH" reactions.

And like all big companies, the last thing mnemonocorps wants is a new law aimed specifically at regulating them! So they stuck a bunch more restrictions on brainpals so they could say they have taken steps to prevent VP.

Now, I need you to listen to me before I say this: I am NOT saying I condone VP, alright? I'm not going like "oh but no one is hurt, everyone is (technically) adults, it's basically roleplay"? This is not an excuse for VP, alright?

Memory play is not just VP, and it's deeply insulting to everyone who engages in memory play to conflate the two!

The reasons people would do memory play are many and varied, as are the things that people do with memory play. And I think people are extra quick to jump on the "memory play is bad" bandwagon not just because of the spectre of VP, but because it's all "eww, kinky sex things".

And yes, I'm not going to try to sugarcoat memory play, alright? There's a lot of weird stuff going on there, and it definitely isn't for everyone. But the thing y'all need to keep in mind is that it's between consensual adults and they (usually*) know what they're doing, okay?

It's safe and mind healthy and consensual. (yes I know these are the same arguments the veepers use to definite VP but I'm not talking about VP here, damn it!).

People can do CNC play with mblocks. People can do roleplay with temporary personality patches, either because they're too awkward/shy/whatever to have sex or because they (or their partners) want to do some vcheating. All these are perfectly safe if done correctly and don't hurt anyone. Especially not you, who aren't even involved in their memory play!

And I promise the slippery slope argument is bullshit: even if people use mblocks to age regress, that doesn't make it VP, alright? There's plenty of people (especially us elderly trans who missed out on a gender-correct early adulthood. (I wasn't able to get genespliced until I was nearly 60!). If I want to experience how my 25-year-old self would have had sex as a girl, that's my own god damn business! And it's not VP and it hurts no one. And all these non-vp uses of memory play are completely blocked by the stock brainpal software, because of their heavy handed approach to trying to prevent VP.

But with this whole stigma against hacking brainpals means that if I ever even mention I've got mine modded, people immediately start side-eying me because they think the only reason anyone would want to hack their brainpal is VP.

No! Piracy of skills and mblocks and yes, memory play. Which isn't entirely VP, even if it keeps getting tarred with that brush.

The piracy argument you'd think would be an easier one to make. I know half of you have all the PS6 ROMs downloaded onto your tangles. How are you gonna steal half the video games on the iarchive and then turn around and say it's wrong to download fluent-Japanese or woodworking to your brainpal? Come on.

Basically my whole point is that mnemonocorps has done a great job convincing the general public to associate illicit (by their rules) brainpal use with VP, and it's solely because they know the average person (rightly, I would add) thinks VP is abhorrent. They're using that disgust to turn the general opinion against the idea of brainpal modding.

And look, look me in my eye, do you really think mnemonocorps is doing this because they genuinely think VP is bad and want the public to help them stop it by shunning people who hack their brainpals? Or is it, just maybe, because they don't want to lose trillions of n$ on skill piracy? And they're just using VP as an excuse?

It's like, come on gals. No one ever went broke assuming companies are acting out of the most basic capitalistic greed, because THEY ALWAYS ARE.

And don't get me started on the people clitriding mnemonocorps for inventing the brainpal in the first place. Look, we all love the brainpal, yes, but it's not like you owe them endless loyalty over it, okay? They can and have done wrong in the past. Accept that you can love the work and hate the company trying to control it.

(it's like: is Thomas Chellae an abusive asshole who should not be out of crimrehab? Yes of course, no question. Is Shadowed Skies the best album of the last 30 years? Also yes! It can be both! Bad people can make good things)

Anyway: end of the day, stop bringing up VP every time anything involving brainpal modding comes up. Don't judge people for modding their brainpals.

(especially since half the problem people have with memory play isn't VP, it's just y'all being antisex. Which is bullshit given how many people subscribe to those "expert oral sex" skills! You're using your brainpal to have better sex, then turning around and going "but I'd never use it for WEIRD sex!". Grow TF the fuck up!)

Also, just because I know someone would bring it up, the whole mind control thing is A MYTH. There have never been any legitimate cases of people getting hacked through their brainpals, hacked or not, okay? I mean, who knows what the nsa or uhsa can do, but no one has ever been able to demonstrate a remote hack on a brainpal. Anyone being "mind controlled" through their brainpal did it to themselves, either with a ppatch or intentionally routing their admin to someone else. "you'll get hacked and turned into a bpZombie!" is a bullshit reason to be against brainpal hacking: it simply does not happen. I used to be a rengineer, I've looked into the brainpal security: it's well done!

* Yeah, Adrian Reach was a tragic case, but it was definitely a million-to-one case. Make your backups, run the ccheck, and don't try to mblock your whole damn life on a failing bp! You'll be fine.

EDIT: I forgot to elaborate on the "no kids have brainpals" thing: yes, I know there are some kids who do have them, BUT they're not the same as regular brainpal installs. They're only done in some extreme cases of mental distress (like survivors of the cWar) and they're locked down. Only their doctor can adjust them, it's not like regular consumer brainpals where you can just fiddle with the settings themselves. So all this memory play stuff we're talking about is only between adults. REAL adults, alright? Even when people are doing VP, everyone involved is of age.

[anistarrose]

I think when a lot of queer people who aspire to marriage, and remember (rightly) fighting for the right to marriage, see queer people who don't want marriage, talking about not entering or even reforming or abolishing marriage, there's an assumption I can't fault anyone for having — because it's an assumption borne of trauma — that queers who aren't big on marriage are inadvertently or purposefully going to either foolishly deprive themselves of rights, or dangerously deprive everyone of the rights associated with marriage. But that's markedly untrue. We only want rights to stop being locked behind marriages. We want an end to discrimination against the unmarried.

We want a multitude of rights for polyamorous relationships. We want ways to fully recognize and extend rights to non-romantic and/or non-sexual unions, including but not limited to QPRs, in a setting distinct from the one that (modern) history has spent so long conflating with romance and sex in a way that makes many of us so deeply uncomfortable. And many of us are also disabled queers who are furious about marriage stripping the disabled of all benefits.

We want options to co-parent, and retain legal rights to see children, that extends to more than two people, and by necessity, to non-biological parents (which, by the way, hasn't always automatically followed from same-gender marriage equality even in places where said equality nominally exists. Our struggles are not as different as you think). We would like for (found or biological) family members and siblings to co-habitate as equal members of a household, perhaps even with pooled finances or engaging in aforementioned co-parenting, without anyone trying to fit the dynamic into a "marriage-shaped box" and assume it's incestuous. We want options to leave either marriages, or alternative agreements, that are less onerous than divorce proceedings have historically been.

I can't speak for every person who does not want to marry, but on average, spurning marriage is not a choice we make lightly. We are deeply, deeply aware of the benefits that only marriage can currently provide. And we do not take that information lightly. We demand better.

Now, talking about the benefits of marriage in respective countries' current legal frameworks, so that all people can make choices from an informed place, is all well and good — but is not an appropriate response to someone saying they are uncomfortable with marriage. There are people for whom entering a marriage, with all its associated norms, expectations, and baggage, would feel like a betrayal of one's self and authenticity that would shake them to their core — and every day, I struggle to unpack if I'm one of them or not. If I want to marry for tax benefits, or not. If that's worth the risk of losing disability benefits, in the (very plausible) possibility that I have to apply for them later in life. If that's worth the emotional burden of having to explain over and over, to both well-meaning and deeply conservative family members, that this relationship is not one of romance or sex. (Because, god, trying just to explain aromanticism or asexuality in a world that broadly thinks they're "fake" is emotional labor enough.)

Marriage is a fundamental alteration to who I am, to what rights an ableist government grants me, and to how I am perceived. I don't criticize the institution just because I enjoy a "free spirit" aesthetic or think the wedding industry is annoying, or whatever.

[nevertheless-moving]

“The other day,” Skar added, “he was talking about what he’s doing there. It sounded an awful lot like he was learning how to read.” The men shifted uncomfortably. “So?” Kaladin asked. “What’s the problem? Sigzil can read his own language. Storms, I can read glyphs.” “It’s not the same,” Skar said. “It’s feminine,” Drehy added. “Drehy,” Kaladin said, “you are literally courting a man.” “So?” Drehy said. “Yeah, what are you saying, Kal?” Skar snapped. “Nothing! I just thought Drehy might empathize.…” “That’s hardly fair,” Drehy said. “Yeah,” Lopen added. “Drehy likes other guys. That’s like … he wants to be even less around women than the rest of us. It’s the opposite of feminine. He is, you could say, extra manly.”

Different possible explanations for this scene, to be taken up depending on which headcanon would be the funniest for a given fic:

While being gay is more broadly acceptable than being unmanly, conflating gender roles with sexuality is not uncommon; the other guys have just gotten more than one drunken lecture from Drehy about how he hates being treated womanly just because he likes dick. Kaladin was obviously working those nights.

Under Vorinism, Gender roles are rigid, but a range of sexualities are perfectly fine. The ardent who visited Kaladin's hometown was just a freak who hated gay people so much it was unreal, and took great pains to explain to the boys of this isolated rural town the unhinged idea that marrying a man was OBVIOUSLY womanly and therefore Bad. He mostly unlearned that shit after joining the army but is a bit confused. It doesn't come up often.

There was one (1) elderly queer couple in heartstone growing up, and one of the men was super gnc, which made people uncomfortable but his parents always told him that you shouldn't shame people for harmless joy. so, yeah, Kaladin just sort of figured that in a relationship between guys, one of them is the woman. He assumes Renarin is gay and I mean. He's not wrong. Part of the reason he never accepted friendly offers of soldier companionship. Not that there's anything wrong with it. He never asked Drehy who was who, because its none of his business and he didn't want to know.

the only times Kaladin has personally ever noticed being attracted to another man is when the guy was doing something womanly. Is it a kink? Is it an extremely dense man needing someone to stand on top of clearly marked social signposts and wave their arms for him to even register them as a sexual being? who knows! not Kaladin! he doesn't have time to unpack any of that. anyway he assumed that all same sex attraction worked the same way and obviously never actually talked about it with a living person. actually I'm expanding this to cover all of Kaladin's sexuality just to make him extra stupid. first time he noticed Tarah was when she punched a dude.

[whoishotteranimepolls]

This blog is really fulfilling my near constant need for long lectures over fandoms that I never really get to flex out huh? I'm going to start making powerpoints. Alright, time to explain Ivankov and Bon Clay with a quick history of the LGBTQ+ community in Japan. Disclaimer: I am not Japanese, I am from a western country, but I will try to do my best to summarize the history and connotations to the best of my ability. I also do understand that some of the genderqueer characters do seem to be based on stereotypes, but that will be explored.

Okama is slang interchangeably used for gay men, drag queens, gender nonconforming men, and transgender women. It is very similar to the English word "Queer," especially in the idea that current members of the LGBTQ+ community are attempting to reclaim it as a positive phrase, rather than the slur that has been used against them. A large part of Japan still conflates gay with crossdressing or transgenderism, which is why homosexual men are sometimes referred to as okama (literally a 'pot' but meaning something similar to the English word 'queen') and are usually represented as cross-dressed and effeminate. The use of the term okama derives from the slang usage of the term to refer to the buttocks and thereby to anal sex which is considered to be the definitive sexual act engaged in by homosexual men. Homosexuality in Japan has had a fraught history that I do not have the character space to completely include here. Bon Clay is a character that first appeared in One Piece in the year 2000. Now, I know a lot of modern day fandoms do not understand the history of queer characters in media. This was long before we had shows like The Owl House, Steven Universe, Yuri on Ice, or She-Ra (I can't think of a lot of modern queer anime off hand). We had very little canon queer characters, at at the time, it was far more common for queer characters to either be women (Sailor Uranus, Utena), or male villains. And Bon Clay was not only queer, he was an out and proud Okama. He was referred to both as a man and a woman, and sang an entire song "Okama Way/Oh Come My Way." Bon Clay, despite being a villain, got a redemption, he befriended the Strawhats, and helped them to escape from Alabasta, even though he himself was sent to jail instead.

“One may stray from the path of a man. One may stray from the path of a woman. But there is no straying from the path of a human!”

In the end, this world is broken down to men and women But I'm a man who is a woman So I'm the best (the strongest) The best (strongest!) OH COME MY WAY

Emporio Ivankov

As Mod pointed out, his design is based off of Doctor Frank N' Furter from Rocky Horror Picture show and Norio Imamura, a real life Okama and a member of Mayumi Tanaka's acting troupe whom Oda met. Ivankov is gender fluid and uses their fruit to switch between whatever sex characteristics they want to have. Ivankov refers to himself as a "Newkama", as opposed to an "Okama". This is a double pun made by mixing words. It basically goes "Newhalf" (Transgender) + Okama (Crossdresser) = Newkama (Newcomer). Newkama claim to go beyond the concept of gender since almost every one of them has experienced life in both male and female bodies thanks to Ivankov's Horu Horu no Mi. Also, there is a question on what pronouns Iva uses, with in the Japanese text, they appear to use something like Neo-pronouns, always replacing the first character with a V in the pronouns they are using (Vatashi vs Watashi for "I" but I do not know enough Japanese to speak on this or how their pronouns should be translated)

She was the queen of NewKama Land in Impel Down, a secret haven inside of the prison where prisons escaped to. (This is why Mod jokes that One Piece fandom took over Horny Jail, we have a gay club in our jail in source material that was created by a transgirl and maintained by genderqueer okamas. We cannot be stopped). She is also a member of the Revolutionary Army, (MANGA Spoilers: A former slave), and Queen of Kamabakka Queendom, a place where okamas can be free to live their lives with no criticism and to just, be themselves.

Now, I understand why the artstyle turns people off and makes them seem like harmful stereotypes, and they aren't always treated well in the story. While Luffy is extremely accepting of Ivankov and Bon Clay (The only people in the entire story he refers to with honorifics are them, and he uses female honorifics, Iva-Chan and Bon-Chan), Sanji has shown to be pretty transphobic. But I also think that they encapsulate the messages of One Piece: Complete and Utter Freedom. The Freedom to be true to yourself, to live your authentic life, and to live without regrets. These characters are not only strong, respectable, and free, but they fight for that freedom for others as well.

There is no queerbaiting in One Piece. The only canon LGBTQ+ Identities we have are the transgender characters, probably attributed to Oda not wanting to write romance, and thus it is harder to make canon gay/lesbian/bi ect characters. Luffy, on the other hand, is argued heavily whether he's canonically aro/ace, or just heavily coded. We have other queer characters as well, especially in Wano. Kiku is a transwoman, and Yamato is a transman. Bon Clay, Ivankov, Inazuma, and other "Okamas" are genderqueer, although the identies may not translate nicely into English. Some of it may not have aged well as well (The use of "Transvestite" for example). But overall, the LGBTQ+ Identities have been respected by the narrative of the source material if not necessary by the characters or author. (And definitely not by some fans). Its also important to remember, Bon Clay was introduced in 2000. Kiku was introduced in 2018, that is nearly 20 years to learn how to depict trans people. She has no gags, she just exists as she is. Oh, and none of the queer characters die in the series, and Bon Clay even has the quote "Queers will never die!"

(Morley should probably be added to this analysis, as a transgender woman who pretty controversial, but she doesn't appear much in the manga/anime so I don't know a lot about her lol. I'm also not going to touch the "debate" of Yamato's gender here)

Sources: Male Homosexuality and Popular Culture in Modern Japan

One Piece: A Queer Retrospective

For context, they are responding to this post about Emporio Ivankov and Bon Clay

Well done! Great job! You deserve a cookie. Because this is why I love Defend Your Blurbo. Emporio Ivankov and Bon Chan would be proud of you

Fun fact, the horny jail reference actually comes from the bg3 fandom and the narrator outtakes. I just think it's very appropriate for the One Piece Fandom at least when it comes to my blog and what you guys have put me through

[womenaremypriority]

What is gender?

Instead of asking “what is a woman?” I propose we should ask more what gender is.  The transgender movement is, fundamentally about placing gender above sex, in language and law- although claiming sex is a spectrum or a complete construction is becoming more common.  ‘Woman’ and ‘man’ aren’t sex terms, they’re genders, sexual attraction is based on gender, not sex, and public planning should be based on gender.  So, what is it?  

The roots of the word gender came from Latin, and originally meant ‘category, group.’  It has etymological roots with the word genre, and this is partly why we have the term grammatical gender in many languages.  Gender became a synonym for biological sex hundreds of years ago, and is used partly as a more family friendly alternative.  As a separate entity, however, gender refers to the social roles of male and female.

Here are a few definitions and helpful information:

Let’s look at the specifics of the different interpretations of the word ‘gender’.

Gender roles: Self explanatory. What feminists are against. What transgender activists claim to be against, and what they claim is not the basis for transgender identity. This seems to be the most clear and understandable definition, to me, anyway.

Gender identity: An internal sense of gender. This has been claimed to exist, but how this could possibly present or feel has not been in anyway demonstrated. Studies have shown transgender people have the brains of the gender they identify as, but those studies are shoddy and flawed. Brain scans aren’t required to transition, these studies don’t account for nonbinary-identified people, and the brain sex argument has fallen out of favor- so, we’ll say that’s not what’s being discussed here. So, what is? What is this internal gender identity? Can we find it? How do we know everyone has it? And why should it be prioritized over birth sex? What’s being described is, frankly, unverifiable and flimsy. Not to mention quite useless. This doesn’t mean I think that people who claim to have this feeling are lying- they could have something that is interpreted as gender, but that doesn’t mean it’s experienced by the general population, and this feeling could be caused by any number of areas. If this feeling is, indeed, dysphoria at being referred to a certain way, and/or euphoria at being referred to a certain way, again, how can we know this is a symptom of some deep held identity, or a sign of something different? How can we verify this, and while I understand personally adapting language to accommodate someone in your life, why should this take priority over sex for the general population? Gender expression- How is this different than sex stereotypes, and gender roles? While I’m told that this doesn’t need to match general societal expectations, how does that actually work? If you’ve expressing your gender- whether that’s man, woman, or some form of nonbinary- even if you know anyone can dress how they want, even if you say ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ means something different to everyone, you are still making a connection between gender and how one looks- and according to the Miriam-Webster photo, acts. Not only is this, again, ridiculous to elevate this above sex in language and law, it’s unhealthy to hyper focus on how others see you, not to mention confusing and harmful message to constantly use the terms ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ together. I’ll be honest, even if transgender people claim the movement isn’t about stereotypes, I don’t believe that’s the case. At the very least, it’s not the message every one of them got. Conflating gender with sex, and the words ‘men’ and ‘women’ with personality, a feeling, clothes, vibes, interests, or an aesthetic, is a dangerous and ridiculous concept. Instead of what it’s claiming to do- breaking the gender binary- it’s putting men and women in a box, yourself. You are the one limiting what men and women can be. Even if everyone decided to identify as some form of nonbinary, this would not affect the reality of sexism and the perceived inferiority of 50% of the population- it would only paint a coat over it. It would make communication and activism impossible. By conflating experience of autism, or interest in space, or interest in a certain style of dress- with the terms man and woman, you are perpetuating stereotypes, not breaking them.

[insaniquariumfish]

Kind of wild how the LGBT+ community went from "gender is a harmful and arbitrary social construct that is completely separate from sex and that should be done away with so people can be liberated from its oppressive nature" to "actually the concept of abolishing gender is bigoted and transphobic because people need gender or else they'll kill themselves and also gender is objectively real and innate and present from birth" in what seems like less than a decade.

Like my views as a gender abolitionist wouldn't exist if it weren't for all the "actually gender is just a social construct" discourse that used to take place. Never mind how utterly nonsense it is to claim that gender itself is fake and made up but that gender identity is real and innate. How can you innately identify as a made up social construct? If you were born and raised as the only human on a planet occupied by genderless robots, would you still feel like wearing dresses or shaving your legs or wearing cargo shorts or chugging beer at a sports bar affirmed your gender? Would you even have a conception of gender at all? No! Because it's a social construct! And if your response to this is to say, "well, I would still have sexual dysphoria, so I would still be transgender," then you are conflating sex with gender and therefore sexual dysphoria with gender dysphoria and therefore transsexual with transgender, when those are not the same thing. Another concept that I was only introduced to because of queer discourse!

It honestly feels like the queer community is shifting into some kind of bizarro backwards inverse version of itself at this point. This is far from the only example of a radical shift in the kinds of ideas that are being spread, legitimized, and accepted that I've seen. Shit that would garner praise ten years ago for being progressive and enlightened will now get you canceled for being a bigot. Things that were staples of a queer understanding of the world are now derided as hateful and phobic. And this isn't a simple case of "well the times change and what we used to see as progressive we now realize was still pretty messed up," like core and foundational ideas and concepts are being cast aside and swapped out for ones that are fundamentally incompatible with, and sometimes even the direct opposite of, them. What happened?

[monsterfuckerconfessions]

Monsterfucking is so entwined with my sexuality that I nearly always conflate horniness with monstrousness (affectionately). When I’m horny or having sex I can almost *feel* my claws and fangs extending. A partner of mine said “wow you’re really just a vampire in real life” (affectionately) and I choose to take that as a compliment!

Monsterfucking is literally so sacred to me. It’s something that allows one to transcend the boundaries of normalcy in regards to sexuality, gender, and even humanity. It’s literally so important to me.

Also, knots are pretty cool 🥰

.

[hellyeahscarleteen]

"I absolutely DESPISE the term "foreplay." Let me tell you why.

That term states or suggests -- structurally, it means "before sex" -- that vaginal intercourse is capital-S sex and that every other kind of sex either isn't sex, or should only exist to help prime the pump, as it were, for vaginal intercourse. It denies that all those other sexual activities are no more or less sex than intercourse is. More than anything, I can't stand the term "foreplay," because I very much want for people to have a sexuality and a sex life which is positive, authentic and wonderful for themselves and their partners, and I think that term and idea is a huge barrier to all of that.

The thing is, the kinds of sexual activities usually classed as foreplay -- oral sex, manual sex, masturbation or mutual masturbation, sensual massage, making out, frottage or petting, the works -- are a lot of people's favorite or most enjoyable kinds of sex. For some, those activities are the only kind of sex they choose to engage in or like, which certainly often includes gay men and lesbian women, meaning that for so many people who are partnered with people of the same gender, the sex they're having and enjoy isn't considered to be sex by some folks. Too, for a majority of women (of every sexual orientation), as well as some men, those activities are the ones through which they experience orgasm. You can have a read here to find out about how a majority of women simply do not reach orgasm through intercourse alone and find out the reasons why that so often is. In a nutshell, though, defining only intercourse as "sex" is a pretty huge dismissal of the sexual reality of millions and millions of women.

The idea of many kinds of sex as "foreplay," was an idea that had, and still has, an awful lot to do with both heterosexism as well as defining what sex is and isn't based on what heterosexual men want to define sex as based on their own desires or pleasure -- leaving so many women's experiences and sexualities out in the cold- and/or on conflating sex with reproduction. In other words, vaginal intercourse is the only "real" sex because it's the kind which presents a risk of pregnancy, or is the only "real" sex because a majority of men get off on it."

From Heather's response to We waited two years for good sex together... and even after sex, we're still waiting.

[butchmartyr]

I think my biggest issue with the post you made (where you screenshotted medusadyke's post) is like... if dozens or hundreds of gay men On This Website were talking openly about having pedophilic kidnapping fantasies, confessing to engaging with art depicting sexual abuse of minors, finding it erotic & jacking off to it, admitting they wish it could happen in real life, & then in addition to all of that ALSO claiming that those things are innately part of Gay Culture and that it's homophobic to criticize them for it, other gay men would be ABSOLUTELY CORRECT to criticize them for it & condemn the behaviour. That's what's going on with transfems on this website -- as a trans woman, I am seeing COUNTLESS trans women claiming that it's Innately Transfem to indulge your paraphilias (including paraphilias) and encourage them and wish you could act them out in real life, which I think is absolutely deranged and only serves to paint the transfem community at large with a negative brush. We're not just baselessly calling trans women pedophiles for no reason or because we have "internalized transmisogyny" or anything, we're critizing them for 1. engaging in pedophilic behaviour, and 2. conflating pedophilia with transfemininity and claiming it's transmisogynistic to condemn that behaviour. We're just going around doing spooky scary hands at random trans women and claiming they're pedos based on nothing. We're actually -- surprisingly -- specifically motivated by NOT thinking it's normal for trans women to be pedophiles and NOT wanting people to view us that way.

Nope! You have lost the plot. The way society at large sexualizes and sees us as demons is not because of the sparse existence of a few shitty trans women ““indulging their paraphilias””, whatever the hell thats supposed to mean, holy shit lol. And you have to be joking if you want to call this “criticism” when I’ve watched her mutuals move to making up pedo accusations about trans women completely baselessly out of thin air as something to tack into a callout post, this is a bad joke. There are not hundreds or even dozens of trans women genuinely saying this about transfemininity, you are falling face first into your biases that lead you and the rest of society to see innocent trans women as predators by reading the worst out of what one may have said and applying that worst-case reading to other members of her marginalized gender group for no reason aside from their shared gender, which is discrimination, even when you do it to trans women and even when they’re really extra bad ones we promise this time.

The drive to search for and excise this specter of an Actually Evil Tranny is something i watch get used monthly to do fun things like call random innocent women rapist scum or pedophiles for having consensual sex with their adult partner in a way someone else doesnt approve of, for making posts calling video games annoying, or for saying that lesbians who praise virulently transmisogynistic lesbian culture are probably shitty. You can say you’re doing “criticism” all you like, but all you are doing are confirming your own preconceived notions and taking it out on other trans women, and this will be obvious every time the transmisogynists equate consensual sex between trans women as sexually violent, harassing, or dangerous. And like again no one is seriously saying pedophilia is transfeminine, and if they did you’re kind of insane for assuming other trans women are just okay with and agree with that or have a naturally shitty moral fiber or something, you have just completely lost the plot, no one else is expected to constantly say they’re not pedophiles be so real with me lmao. At most a few people are being gross or posting kink you read into cruelly, and i know there’s a bunch edgily joking about it to get people like you to unfollow them and save them from watching more pedohysterics; which is something we call “maybe a little in bad taste”, a category of being annoying or shitty that isn’t equatable to actual fucking sexual abuse.

Also, “Paraphilias” are still an arbitrary and garbage way to try to understand and pathologize sexuality that basically just means weird, and resultingly being attracted to trans or fat people is placed in the same category as sexually abusing children, among other insane pathologic and arbitrary shit. You need to understand abuse is not about desire. You need to come to understand that the problem with sexual abuse is the abuse; pedophilia is not a problem of Dangerous Perverted Deviants corrupting the fucking youth and spreading mind poison (again, you have fallen for reactionary sex politics hook line and sinker here), CSA is normalized as fuck in our society and happens most frequently as a symptom of power to hold over someone and to enforce norms. Failing to understand this and (reactionarily!) focusing on the construction of the Deviant Pedophile instead only makes it easier for ‘normal’ people in positions of normalcy and power to abuse that power. You’re lost! Please think critically and honestly for a while.