#the thing about the 'drop the T' movement and biphobia in the community at large applies to ya'll too

[berzerker-nerd]

This is kind of a touchy subject but I'd like to get my thoughts on it out there and I'm going to try to do it like I think Beau of the 5th column on YouTube would.

So today we're going to talk about the LGBT+ Community, the lgb alliance, my perspective as an outsider looking in, and why I say the queer community

First of all I am an outsider looking in. I am a cis/straight person (as I have said in other posts) but I want to be an ally to those that fall under the umbrella term queer. Now I know that some hate the term queer because it has been (and still is in some homophobic/transphobic groups) used as a slur. I understand not liking the term on those grounds. The main use of the term nowadays though including within the LGBT+ community is as a blanket term for anyone in that community including; enbys, people who are asexual or aromantic and so on and thats how I use it. To me it brings a sense of togetherness which to me is what a community should be: people coming together and sticking up for one another. Making it an acronym makes sections, and sections can be removed. Which brings us to the LGB alliance and the drop the T movement which is exactly what it sounds like. Some lesbians, gays, and bisexuals want to distance themselves from trans people, enbys, and other gender nonconforming people as well as aces and aros. In other words, removing sections. I've been hearing a lot of LGB people saying the same things about trans and nonbinary people that homophobic groups have been saying about them for years. Which in the current political climate especially here in the US which reads as "Hey we'll let you go after these people. We'll even help you do it, as long as you don't come after us." At least thats how it reads from my perspective. I can guarantee that the people who hate the LGBT+ community won't stop hating the community as a whole just because the LGB drops the T. Trust me ive met enough of those people to know. Ive also been hearing about bi phobia within the queer community at large which to me reads as the classic "one or the other pick a side!" thing that straight people have said to bisexual people for years as well as people saying that asexual and aromantic people aren't a thing which doesn't make sense to because if there are people who feel sexual or romantic attraction to the opposite sex/gender or to the same sex/gender then logically there have to be some that don't feel sexual or romantic attraction to any sex/gender.

I'll end with this: if you're part of a large community with smaller sections throwing one or more of the smaller sections under the bus isn't going to stop the bus from running the rest of you over. It might not even slow it down.

Its something to think about.

[vampish-glamour]

Hiya! I'm new to your wonderful corner of the internet, and I hope you don't mind if I ask a lot of questions lol. Firstly, what do you think of pan vs bi? The only satisfying answer I have gotten as to the differences (besides subjective stuff like feeeeeeling like you value their gender or whatever) is that a pan person would f*ck intersex/enbies, while bi people wouldn't. I'm curious what you think. Second, do you think that the LGBs are ever going to have a satisfying split from the Ts/the gender fandom? What kind of steps would we take to accomplish that?

Hi, and welcome! I don’t mind questions at all. 😄

I’m strongly against the concept of pansexuality.

I believe that the label is rooted in biphobia and a misunderstanding of bisexuals.

The main arguments for the difference between bi and pan (off the top of my head) are as followed;

Bi means two, pan means all. Bisexuals are only attracted to two genders but pansexuals are attracted to all.

Bisexuals take gender into consideration when it comes to attraction. Pansexuals don’t.

Bisexuals care about parts, pansexuals care more about somebody’s personality. (“Hearts not parts”)

Bisexuals won’t date trans people, pansexuals will.

These are all either based on a misunderstanding of sexuality, or of bisexuals.

For the first one, I do agree that bi means two. But it means the two sexes, because sexuality is based off of sex (hence it being called SEXuality).

In the same way homosexual means same sex attracted, heterosexual means opposite sex attracted, and asexual means attracted to neither sex... bisexual means attracted to two/both sexes. And since there’s only two sexes, “pansexual” meaning “attracted to all sexes” is functionally the exact same thing as bisexuality.

Even if you believe in more than two genders (which I don’t), the attraction is still based off of sex characteristics... and on a biological level, there would be no difference in how a pansexual experiences attraction and how a bisexual experiences attraction.

For the second one, there are many bisexuals who don’t care about gender. There are many who have a preference. To say that all bisexuals have a preference is a misunderstanding of bisexuality. And, to say that preferences dictate sexuality is a misunderstanding of sexuality. Preferences or no preferences—it doesn’t change what sex(es) you are attracted to. If you are attracted to both sexes, you are bisexual. Your preferences or lack thereof don’t make or take away from your bisexuality.

For the third one, I just find this argument disgustingly biphobic, and in general an arrogant thing to say—that only one sexuality, pansexuality, cares about one’s personality over their body. Especially when the idea that bisexuals and homosexuals are obsessed with sex is a stereotype that has been fought against for years.

And once again, it’s a misunderstanding of sexuality. A straight woman who is more interested in sex than a guy’s personality isn’t suddenly a different sexuality. So why is this the case for bisexuals?

I believe it’s to escape the negative stereotypes that cloud over bisexuality. The idea that bisexuals are sex crazed and greedy, and only care about genitalia. It’s not a coincidence that pansexuality makes its entire brand off of distancing itself from these negative stereotypes.

It would be like if a bunch of homosexual women started calling themselves “samesexual”, and claimed that they’re different than homosexual women/lesbians because unlike lesbians, samesexuals aren’t predatory.

That sounds insanely homophobic, yes? If we can accept that creating a whole new “sexuality” to distance oneself from negative homosexual stereotypes is homophobic, we have to accept that creating a whole new “sexuality” to distance oneself from negative bisexual stereotypes is biphobic.

And the fourth argument, there’s not much to say here other than that this is plain transphobia. It separates trans people from cis people, placing trans men and women into a separate box away from “man” and “woman”

On top of this, being attracted to or not being attracted to trans people does not make a whole new sexuality, because trans people are not a third sex.

It’s also another misconception about bisexuality—because never have transsexuals not been in the bisexual dating pool.

Onto the next topic;

I don’t support “drop the T”.

This isn’t to say that I don’t think separating LGB and T for certain causes is helpful. For example; fighting for same sex marriage is an LGB issue, while fighting for accessible and affordable medical care for gender dysphoria is a T issue.

To be fair, I’m almost of the opinion that the large grouping itself isn’t really necessary, considering how different the experiences of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals are. But, I can understand why they’re all lumped together for a rights movement, especially because homophobia impacts everyone in the LGBT acronym. So since it’s here and it’s been here for a while, I’m in support of the full acronym being LGBT.

But as far as completely dropping the T goes... I believe that the push for this comes from a misunderstanding of transgender people, likely from the terrible representation they are given from people who aren’t actually transsexual.

Because the Ts and the gender fandom are two incredibly different groups, and although the distinction isn’t made often... it’s incredibly important for exactly this reason—that they get mixed together and it leads to hatred of trans people.

Transgender people/transsexuals are people who experience gender dysphoria. The goal of most trans people is to live a normal life as the gender their brain recognizes them to be. They have medical and mental health needs that are important to their quality of life. This is the crowd where you’re likely to find people who simply want to live their lives in peace.

The gender fandom, at least who I think you’re referring to, are people who don’t experience gender dysphoria, and often treat gender as an accessory, a performance, a fashion or political statement, etc. This is the crowd where you’ll find the neopronoun users, the obscure labels like “genderfluid”, and are unfortunately typically the people who get the spotlight over actual trans people.

Please do not confuse the two!

Look, I get it. Watching the second group run around and make LGBT people look like a joke is painful. But it is not the fault of transsexuals. Many trans people are just as annoyed as everyone else is, especially because they are directly being misrepresented (shown by how you and many others consider them to be one and the same with things like MOGAI).

So I won’t be advocating for dropping the T.

However, I do fully support from separating from MOGAI (or the “queer community” as many of them like to say), and I think the way to do that is to make a clear distinction between LGBT people, and QIA+ people. And making it clear that the T only includes dysphoric trans men/women.

It’s not about dropping the T. It’s about dropping everything after the T, and restoring the T to its original meaning.

We need more LGBT people to stand up against how the “queer community” is representing us, and to make it clear that the acronym is LGBT, and that the LGBT movement is a civil rights movement, not a “let’s all party and share our pronouns” movement.

Thanks to the “queer community”, LGBT people aren’t taken seriously. Thanks to the “gender fandom”, transsexuals are seen as a joke and a burden to the LGBT community. Both the “queer community” and “gender fandom” need to be separated and made distinct from the LGBT community, and this should be done with all four letters, not just three.

Tl;dr:

I’m against the pansexual label, and I believe it is inherently biphobic and often transphobic.

It also perpetuates harmful stereotypes about bisexuals and homosexuals.

I don’t support the “drop the T” movement.

The T gets a lot of misrepresentation, and I believe that misrepresentation is part of where the “drop the T” movement comes from.

It’s important to make a distinction between the LGBT movement and the modern day “queer community” if we ever want LGBT people to be taken seriously again.

[alstroemeria-fox-archive]

Drama thing I took off of DR (any reblogs are being moved onto my personal dw):

@harbormail

Here is the post I was talking about.  The first part is a long ass list of anecdotal evidence of discrimination, and further down you will find some more (largely non-anecdotal) evidence.

“Highlights” include:

Medicalisation of asexuality until the last DSM update.  You can self-identify out of being medicalised now, but that requires that a) the person knows what asexuality is and b) the doctor/therapist believes it to be a valid orientation.

This exerpt from the first link “Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals“:

In a recent investigation (MacInnis & Hodson, in press) we uncovered strikingly strong bias against asexuals in both university and community samples. Relative to heterosexuals, and even relative to homosexuals and bisexuals, heterosexuals: (a) expressed more negative attitudes toward asexuals (i.e., prejudice); (b) desired less contact with asexuals; and (c) were less willing to rent an apartment to (or hire) an asexual applicant (i.e., discrimination). Moreover, of all the sexual minority groups studied, asexuals were the most dehumanized (i.e., represented as “less human”). Intriguingly, heterosexuals dehumanized asexuals in two ways. Given their lack of sexual interest, widely considered a universal interest, it might not surprise you to learn that asexuals were characterized as “machine-like” (i.e., mechanistically dehumanized). But, oddly enough, asexuals were also seen as “animal-like” (i.e., animalistically dehumanized). Yes, asexuals were seen as relatively cold and emotionless and unrestrained, impulsive, and less sophisticated.

So as I said, straight people don’t see asexuals (and tbh aromantics either) as being straight and actively discriminate against us.  Me being heteromantic won’t save that because guess what:

Corrective rape also happens against asexuals.  So I either have to closet myself or run the risk of my partner deciding they want to “fix” me.  I personally have had that particular threat used against me as a flirtatious gesture.

Plus much more!  Bonus links about the fact that ace people have been in the LGBT+ community for years.

“I just think hetero aces don’t really have enough in common w/ LGBT community to include it in the movement“ - does the above change your mind at all?  But regardless I fail to see how a community dedicated to aiding and creating safe spaces for sexual minorities is somehow not able to include another sexual minority?  It’s an argument I've seen before but it never made sense to me.  Presumably because people use the “lack of sexual orientation” definition to mean “not a sexual orientation, so not a sexual minority”.  Or that it’s “easily hidden”...?

Which might not actually be marginalisation specifically, so you’re half right - but it is straight up erasure because it pushes asexuals out of any type of focus around minority orientations and their issues.  Although specifically defining it as such so you can push asexuals out of any focus is marginalisation, so... as I said, half right.

All that said you have, in my opinion, a very odd idea of what constitutes being LGBT+ in the first place honestly?  “From my experience trans people who arent attracted to other trans people at the very least are often transphobic so I’m not including them!” seems to imply being trans doesn’t mean you’re inherently LGBT+ despite T being in the acronym, which isn’t... I mean there’s an argument that bigots shouldn’t be active in the community or local groups, but not being LGBT+ at all is a big thing to propose.  Especially when you consider internalised prejudice is a big issue and trans people not wanting to date other trans people is a sign of that.

However I’m gonna go ahead and focus on this as part of the asexual argument, since that’s why we’re here.

Anyway your justification that to be considered as LGBT(+ or not) you need to be gay doesn’t even make sense.  Again, being bi means you aren’t gay, so there’s that immediately.  Telling bi people they can only be part of the LGBT+ community if they’re actively seeking or are in a relationship with someone of the same gender, and therefore “presenting as gay”, is classic biphobia, so I hope that’s not what you’re implying with this either.

Additionally your orientation has nothing to do with whether you would date trans people, regardless of whether you’re trans yourself or not.  You would exclude straight trans people who will date other trans people, on the basis that some straight trans people won’t, but allow in gay trans people who wouldn’t date other trans people because they’re gay...?  That makes no sense.  You’re trying to create a LGBT+ vetting process based on a correlation that doesn’t exist.

Dating other trans people doesn’t make a trans person gay, and being gay doesn’t mean you’d date other trans people.  A bi person dating someone of the same gender doesn’t make them gay.  Why is such a thing a prerequisite for aro/ace people when can’t reasonably be one for anyone else?

Look I dunno if you’re aphobic, it’s possible you’re someone who has radically different ideas about what being LGBT+ is than anyone I have ever seen or spoken to in my life (bar radicals tbh, not to imply you are one though since they tend to also try and drop the T completely and you aren’t).

Unless I’m completely misinterpreting you, or your argument isn’t getting though properly, idk

But yeah.  Also any replies to this will be funneled to my personal @solar-wave to keep the drama on my follwer’s dash to a minimum.  Also also I know you keep saying LGBT and don’t include the +, but the + is important to many people, largely considered the desired standard, and is how the community includes ace people in the acronym in the first place so *shrug*