Implying everyone who disagrees with u is taking away ur free speech isn't a good look when you're literally antagonizing people for daring to want nuanced labels to describe their orientafion. Literally stop it's so cringy
Last edited:
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Social LGBTQIA+
- Thread starter dhelmise
- Start date
You don't need to continuously get defensive whenever someone replies to you by the way. It's not a good look. Everyone else in this thread is just having a serious discussion, and you coming in and talking like we're in PS talking in Lobby is the only truly cringe part of this. Literally stop trying to police everything. You've done this in the PokePride discord and now it's happening here. It's fine if you don't agree with this discussion, but if you have absolutely nothing constructive to add onto it, there's no point in commenting on it. With a modified quote FROM you,
[5:27 PM] [ehT]: get off my dick
(changing name since I don't want to leak your real name)
No, what I was implying was that you had contributed nothing of value to the conversation but for some reason felt the need to chime in regardless. You thought that was an invitation to make an even more puerile post.
Clearly, you think that my argument is wrong. I think that these discussions are valuable and would love to hear your perspective in full, so please explain to me why I am wrong. Before you do though, I would encourage you to read my posts, and the thoughtful contributions of dice and TheValkyries again in detail, as from this post it is pretty clear you have either not read the posts at all, completely misunderstood the argument, or are being deliberately disingenuous (though for what reason I am baffled).
I'm p sure I do not need to chime in here as my feminism has barely updated since the 80's, but I feel like Crux is making an important point about the relationship between the structures of oppression we encounter and the identity labels we take up. Nuanced labels are important to individuals' wellbeing, but when we atomize ourselves with these labels it can separate us politically in ways that do not make sense in relation to the forces of oppression we encounter. It might seem trite or policing in some sense to re-read ppl's experiences back to them, but ppl often make bad assumptions about forces of oppression. For example, as a non-binary person I encounter a lovely package of forms of discrimination that people who aren't non-binary do not encounter in exactly the same way. Is being a white non-binary a special political class that needs to be organized around specifically and separately? No, although other identities do not encounter heterosexism/homophobia and misogyny/patriarchy in exactly the same way as I do, the forms of oppression I encounter still coalesce around oppressing women and homosexual/non-heterosexual subjects. So in my political discourses/action I try to centre women, non-white ppl, and homosexuals since it is forms of oppression centre-d on these identities that I encounter. My label as a gender non-conforming person is not necessarily separate or indicative of an increased encounter with oppression than a binary woman, I encounter this form of oppression differently but it is the same form of oppression that women encounter as women and it is important to identify the overlapping experiences of this oppression in order to build political solidarity. Same for the case of homophobia/heterosexism, I do not experience a unique form of oppression that we could for example hypothetically call 'binarism' that only applies to non-binary gender identities, in fact 'binarism' belongs to the same forces of oppression as would more broadly be called 'heterosexism' and that is encountered as homophobia by the subjects it effects.
hopefully I am understanding all of this right, I have rly not worked on theory v much in recent years. feel free to correct me to emphasize certain things that I was not able to.
hopefully I am understanding all of this right, I have rly not worked on theory v much in recent years. feel free to correct me to emphasize certain things that I was not able to.
I wouldn't say identity as a construct is so bad, per se. While I do agree that limiting ourselves to a set of terms with rigid definitions to try and legitimize the non-rigid feelings we have deep inside isn't ideal, having labels is still at the very least a convenience for the sake of explaining the brunt of how you feel, even if words themselves can never fully portray the way we feel internally to perfect detail.
It would be an ideal world if everyone could just shrug their shoulders and say "I am what I am", but we unfortunately do not live in an ideal world. People are obsessed with trying to put terms to things and categorize them to the finest detail; it is that same notion that lends to people feeling like it's necessary to "come out" whenever they find the words to come to terms with how they associate themselves.
Personally, I believe that if we were to cease all use of labels, that it would only set us backwards to the previous "default" of only associating things as either masculine or feminine, which can only serve to bring harm to people who find their identities and preferences somewhere in between or external to those constructs.
Funny joke, though probably not something to end an otherwise entirely formal argument on-
Again, there is a distinction between people's personal use of labels etc. to understand their personal identity and generalising that as a model of attraction or as something with any worth beyond that specific individual. You are saying that the former is often good and fine. I have said repeatedly that I agree with this. I am saying the latter is bad, and this post misunderstands my argument entirely.
Also, I still don't get why the people who have responded are so obsessed with the last line of my post rather than the substance of my argument.
If they had actually read my argument about why the distinction between romantic and sexual attraction is particularly harmful for gay people then maybe they would reconsider this.
seriously? the distinction between romantic and sexual attraction harms no one. it's just a fact of human sexuality. when someone chooses a label for themselves, it does not impact you in any way. it doesn't hurt you, either, when that label becomes something more than one person uses that label. just because labels are descriptive rather than prescriptive and people wanna try different ones doesn't mean people are obsessed with them, and pointing out that these nuances exist doesn't sexualize queer people. that's bullshit. straight people have a sexual orientation too and their own individual nuances. they're allowed to have labels too lol. the point of queer liberation is to let people live and love on their own terms, and when you imply that people are hurting you for deciding what terms they live on, it's honestly no different from like telling bi ppl to "just pick one" cause it makes gay ppl look bad. just cause some kid on tumblr is exploring their sexuality and using words you don't like doesn't mean they'd find their True Orientation TM if they just logged off and thought a little harder about it. that's so condescending dude. i wouldn't have found out i was bi and nonbinary if i didn't meet people on the internet who told me i could even feel that way. i would probably still be unsure of myself if i didn't get the chance to think about who i could be, or hear people describe their experience in a way that resonated with me. being gay was unthinkable 100 years ago, too. but oh, one conservative made a joke about neopronouns so i guess i gotta throw my whole identity out and start from scratch!!
big fan of dice but there is literally no conceivable way that this post is in good faith unless its writer is illiterate. To begin with, it accuses me of a variety of different intolerances that I neither have nor have expressed in any of my posts in this thread. The only possible reason for this is an attempt at bad faith engagement to undermine the points I have made without actually engaging with them. Next, it is comprised of a series of non-sequiturs that are individually incoherent, and somehow collectively contradictory.
Most of my responses to replies to my post in this thread have just been pointing out that they have failed to understand my argument and redirecting them to important distinctions that cause their response to be unresponsive. In this case, dice has already done that for me. ehT 's response, however, not only has nothing to do with what I said but also has a very large number of separate problems that deserve individual treatment. Each sentence, more or less, expresses a separately bad response or independently harmful idea, so I will respond to each in turn.
I would also like to apologise to Nalei - I think you were actually replying in good faith. Regardless, if we are talking bad faith and intellectual dishonesty, this post takes the cake. I will also try to make this post as clear as possible, such that each claim is separate and precise, hence the format.
1) I explained in my first post that it harmed gay people as a whole and especially young LGBT people. This is not a response to that argument.
2) There are a very large number of young gay/lesbian people who have latched onto the distinction between sexual and romantic attraction because they have grown up in homophobic environments. This has led them to experience a significant amount of trauma. They have objectively been harmed by this model.
3) As I explained in my first post, it literally perpetuates homophobia. I assume you think this is harmful.
4) Even if it were not harmful, it is still incoherent. We should not model LGBT politics around an incoherent model.
5) In terms of more indirect harms, if this is our model of sexuality, then it changes the goals and advocacy of LGBT movements, safe spaces, and groups. Given that I have explained why it is independently wrong and harmful to those things, your argument that it is harming no individual misunderstands the full impact that the split attraction model has. You focus only on individuals and not their relations to a whole. This is, by definition, the neoliberalism I am critiquing.
1) It does impact me. I have been harmed by it as a gay non-binary person.
2) I explained at great length in my first post why it is not a general "fact of human sexuality".
3) You cannot just claim something is a fact of human sexuality. If you think that it is a fact of human sexuality, then explain why and respond to my arguments.
1) It does and has hurt me personally.
2) People using the labels as individuals is fine if they think it is valuable to them.
3) A caveat to that is that these labels also often hurt the individuals who subscribe to them, as explained in my original post and above.
4) People using labels is different from us understanding LGBT politics (i.e. anything but individual identity) on the basis of these models.
1) This first half of this sentence is incoherent.
2) I explained in depth how it specifically sexualises and harms gay people. If you disagree, then respond to that argument.
3) The fact you are willing to respond to an argument about how something harms gay people with "that's bullshit" and no other substance says a lot about how much you actually care about gay people.
1) Everyone is allowed labels individually, it does not follow from this that they are good or should be applied generally to our thinking or politics.
2) Nearly all of the straight labels are terrible and incoherent as well, for the reasons in my original post.
1) It is not at all clear that this is the point of queer liberation.
2) I am not implying they are hurting me for the terms "they live on", I am explicitly stating that this model of LGBT sexuality and politics is harmful.
3) This bi politics thing is totally unrelated. But also, people do not systematically think this about bi people. Even if they did, it is not a form of oppression. Neoliberal cooption of terms of identity in a way that is harmful to the entire LGBT community is both systematic and a form of oppression. It is also the locus of the biphobia you are alluding to.
4) Why did you even bring this up lol it is totally irrelevant to everything I have said.
1) This is meaningless. I am glad you found your identity that way, but it does not follow from this that the split attraction model is good or legitimate.
2) It is uncontroversial that many people are wrong about what their identity actually is. Patriarchy and homophobia are constructs literally designed to ensure that people who don't fit within those paradigms don't identify with what they are actually feeling. It is my argument that the split attraction model is not only symptomatic of that, but a part of it. If you are interested in this, lesbian literature on compulsory heterosexuality, which I discussed in my original post, is particularly enlightening.
3) I can't believe I am having to clarify this again, but I am not concerned with individual identity. People are more than free to identify how they want, if it is helpful to them. The fact that they may be wrong or that what they are identifying as may actually be harmful to them does not detract from that in anyway. What I am actually critiquing is a model and conceptual understanding of identity as it relates to overall LGBT politics/communities. Nothing you have said engages with that crucial distinction.
1) Irrelevant
2) At the risk of making another one liner that liberals latch onto as the only point I made and try to one up me in this thread: neopronouns are also harmful. They make mockery of the trans experience, focus on individualistic linguistic politics and attempt to categorise differences that don't actually exist (i.e. the same argument I have made about the split attraction model applies to them too.)
I would appreciate it if further responses to my post actually engaged with it, rather than merely spouting the same harmful and homophobic liberal queer politics that I am critiquing back at me.
Most of my responses to replies to my post in this thread have just been pointing out that they have failed to understand my argument and redirecting them to important distinctions that cause their response to be unresponsive. In this case, dice has already done that for me. ehT 's response, however, not only has nothing to do with what I said but also has a very large number of separate problems that deserve individual treatment. Each sentence, more or less, expresses a separately bad response or independently harmful idea, so I will respond to each in turn.
I would also like to apologise to Nalei - I think you were actually replying in good faith. Regardless, if we are talking bad faith and intellectual dishonesty, this post takes the cake. I will also try to make this post as clear as possible, such that each claim is separate and precise, hence the format.
1) I explained in my first post that it harmed gay people as a whole and especially young LGBT people. This is not a response to that argument.
2) There are a very large number of young gay/lesbian people who have latched onto the distinction between sexual and romantic attraction because they have grown up in homophobic environments. This has led them to experience a significant amount of trauma. They have objectively been harmed by this model.
3) As I explained in my first post, it literally perpetuates homophobia. I assume you think this is harmful.
4) Even if it were not harmful, it is still incoherent. We should not model LGBT politics around an incoherent model.
5) In terms of more indirect harms, if this is our model of sexuality, then it changes the goals and advocacy of LGBT movements, safe spaces, and groups. Given that I have explained why it is independently wrong and harmful to those things, your argument that it is harming no individual misunderstands the full impact that the split attraction model has. You focus only on individuals and not their relations to a whole. This is, by definition, the neoliberalism I am critiquing.
1) It does impact me. I have been harmed by it as a gay non-binary person.
2) I explained at great length in my first post why it is not a general "fact of human sexuality".
3) You cannot just claim something is a fact of human sexuality. If you think that it is a fact of human sexuality, then explain why and respond to my arguments.
1) It does and has hurt me personally.
2) People using the labels as individuals is fine if they think it is valuable to them.
3) A caveat to that is that these labels also often hurt the individuals who subscribe to them, as explained in my original post and above.
4) People using labels is different from us understanding LGBT politics (i.e. anything but individual identity) on the basis of these models.
1) This first half of this sentence is incoherent.
2) I explained in depth how it specifically sexualises and harms gay people. If you disagree, then respond to that argument.
3) The fact you are willing to respond to an argument about how something harms gay people with "that's bullshit" and no other substance says a lot about how much you actually care about gay people.
1) Everyone is allowed labels individually, it does not follow from this that they are good or should be applied generally to our thinking or politics.
2) Nearly all of the straight labels are terrible and incoherent as well, for the reasons in my original post.
1) It is not at all clear that this is the point of queer liberation.
2) I am not implying they are hurting me for the terms "they live on", I am explicitly stating that this model of LGBT sexuality and politics is harmful.
3) This bi politics thing is totally unrelated. But also, people do not systematically think this about bi people. Even if they did, it is not a form of oppression. Neoliberal cooption of terms of identity in a way that is harmful to the entire LGBT community is both systematic and a form of oppression. It is also the locus of the biphobia you are alluding to.
4) Why did you even bring this up lol it is totally irrelevant to everything I have said.
1) This is meaningless. I am glad you found your identity that way, but it does not follow from this that the split attraction model is good or legitimate.
2) It is uncontroversial that many people are wrong about what their identity actually is. Patriarchy and homophobia are constructs literally designed to ensure that people who don't fit within those paradigms don't identify with what they are actually feeling. It is my argument that the split attraction model is not only symptomatic of that, but a part of it. If you are interested in this, lesbian literature on compulsory heterosexuality, which I discussed in my original post, is particularly enlightening.
3) I can't believe I am having to clarify this again, but I am not concerned with individual identity. People are more than free to identify how they want, if it is helpful to them. The fact that they may be wrong or that what they are identifying as may actually be harmful to them does not detract from that in anyway. What I am actually critiquing is a model and conceptual understanding of identity as it relates to overall LGBT politics/communities. Nothing you have said engages with that crucial distinction.
1) Irrelevant
2) At the risk of making another one liner that liberals latch onto as the only point I made and try to one up me in this thread: neopronouns are also harmful. They make mockery of the trans experience, focus on individualistic linguistic politics and attempt to categorise differences that don't actually exist (i.e. the same argument I have made about the split attraction model applies to them too.)
I would appreciate it if further responses to my post actually engaged with it, rather than merely spouting the same harmful and homophobic liberal queer politics that I am critiquing back at me.
some are slightly less prominent than others, but here's what i found:
- mareep/ampharos/ampharos-mega
- politoed
- slowking (seems to be slightly pinker in older gens)
- ralts?
- toxicroak
- yanmega
- dewott (but not so much oshawott/samurott)
- drizzile/inteleon
- debatably obstagoon
- morgrem (but not impidimp/grimmsnarl)
a lot of these are not quite the right shade of blue/pink for the flag, but hopefully they're close enough.
Normal: Hatterene, Galarian Rapidash (maybe), Primarina
Shiny: Golduck (a stretch), Aerodactyl, Politoed, Ampharos, Toxicroak, Vivillion, Primarina (again), Inteleon.
lots of some other ticky tacky Maybes but these are the ones I flagged
Shiny: Golduck (a stretch), Aerodactyl, Politoed, Ampharos, Toxicroak, Vivillion, Primarina (again), Inteleon.
lots of some other ticky tacky Maybes but these are the ones I flagged
LGBT+; it always was just a dicey topic. Thing is though, I was thinking on it lately, and the more I think on it the less I understand the reason why.
For reference, I'm a bisexual trans girl; I've been bi for a pretty long time, but I've only been trans for about 9 months now. By nature, of course it wouldn't make sense to me, but I'm talking in terms of actual logistics. To a degree, I understand the attention-seeking aspect for the super specific "genders" and whatnot, but what I don't understand is the inherent idea behind LGBT hatred. Logically, why should people try to threaten the lives of those who just want to be happy with themselves and be with who they want to be? Isn't happiness, self-discovery, and security the crux of mental health according to pretty much everyone? Why should people make exceptions for LGBT+ members?
The only real explanation I can really come up with is that people are afraid of change and things outside of what is considered the "norm". But, change is another fundamental aspect of human society and growth, so I suppose it comes full circle. I guess I just wish people were more accepting of LGBT folk, because at the end of the day, we just want to be secure with who we are and what we want to be. Threatening people's lives and trying to tear people apart just because you don't want to understand them is not only ridiculous, but hypocritical at its core.
Late night thoughts at their finest
For reference, I'm a bisexual trans girl; I've been bi for a pretty long time, but I've only been trans for about 9 months now. By nature, of course it wouldn't make sense to me, but I'm talking in terms of actual logistics. To a degree, I understand the attention-seeking aspect for the super specific "genders" and whatnot, but what I don't understand is the inherent idea behind LGBT hatred. Logically, why should people try to threaten the lives of those who just want to be happy with themselves and be with who they want to be? Isn't happiness, self-discovery, and security the crux of mental health according to pretty much everyone? Why should people make exceptions for LGBT+ members?
The only real explanation I can really come up with is that people are afraid of change and things outside of what is considered the "norm". But, change is another fundamental aspect of human society and growth, so I suppose it comes full circle. I guess I just wish people were more accepting of LGBT folk, because at the end of the day, we just want to be secure with who we are and what we want to be. Threatening people's lives and trying to tear people apart just because you don't want to understand them is not only ridiculous, but hypocritical at its core.
Late night thoughts at their finest
Ausma from what I’ve noticed from most right wing politics, the argument always ends up going to a fallacious slippery slope. Where do we toe the line when it comes to the rights of others? Throughout history it seems that because a minority group earn rights to their cause, people try to stoop down to a group that’s inherently harmful. They think that the movement will reach a point of absurdity (if they somehow don’t already think it has but the current battle atm is trans rights which isn’t harmful if you looked up the majority of studies supporting trans people) if more minorities continue to earn rights.
If you live in the US, notice how when gay marriage was legalized, there was a complete shift over to oppressing trans people? It’s because they knew they were facing a losing battle and now the same arguments made against gay people a decade ago were copy pasted for trans people. It’s all been a cycle from the Civil Rights movement, to gay rights, and now trans rights. And they’re still under the impression that if [insert minority group here] gain more rights it will then move to supporting pedophiles or beastiality which as mentioned before, are inherently harmful to both parties of such affairs.
To me conservatism is self destrcutive to the very nature of humanity. We as a species have been gifted a high intelligence and we are made to adapt to the circumstances around us. It’s how we are capable of surviving. Why are we to embrace traditional values when there is so much more to discover by opening up our hearts to the possibilities of the future.
Also it’s very clear to me that these people have certainly seen or met a trans person throughout their life but pass well enough in society and also them being trans is none of your business anyway unless they want to be public about it lol.
If you live in the US, notice how when gay marriage was legalized, there was a complete shift over to oppressing trans people? It’s because they knew they were facing a losing battle and now the same arguments made against gay people a decade ago were copy pasted for trans people. It’s all been a cycle from the Civil Rights movement, to gay rights, and now trans rights. And they’re still under the impression that if [insert minority group here] gain more rights it will then move to supporting pedophiles or beastiality which as mentioned before, are inherently harmful to both parties of such affairs.
To me conservatism is self destrcutive to the very nature of humanity. We as a species have been gifted a high intelligence and we are made to adapt to the circumstances around us. It’s how we are capable of surviving. Why are we to embrace traditional values when there is so much more to discover by opening up our hearts to the possibilities of the future.
Also it’s very clear to me that these people have certainly seen or met a trans person throughout their life but pass well enough in society and also them being trans is none of your business anyway unless they want to be public about it lol.
I feel like that's part of it, certainly - like, there are people who are all right with the concept of people having gender identities and sexualities which do not match how they perceive the world, but have much more of an issue with people who fall into either/both of these camps when they're in the presence of it. For example, there might sometimes be sincerity in the line, "you can be and do whatever you want in the bedroom". But I think that beyond this, there are two important factors: that queerness can be seen by those who have questioned their gender and/or sexuality as totally steering into those identities which they see as perhaps alien to them and therefore try to rebuke within themselves; and because of the association of sexuality and gender identity with gender norms can cause some people to see queerness as some sort of threat. They're wrong for doing so, and it's clear evidence of toxic culture, but I think that's where it comes from. Like, a guy shouldn't be TERRIFIED that someone will try to sleep with them just because that other person is gay; a big part of it, I think, is indeed this lack of understanding of what's different (being gay=/=liking EVERY guy under the Sun, for starters)...but more importantly, it's a confrontation of their own sexuality and their perceived sense of like...masculinity. It's really annoying. It doesn't help that guys tend to think that guys who are interested in other guys will behave the same way toward them as guys who who are interested in chicks. Perhaps there's some truth to it, but for me personally, as an example, if I give you a compliment, I am NOOOT flirting; I just want to say something that I genuinely believe to be praiseworthy. Frankly, it feels offensive to be treated like everything I do and say is an attempt to sleep with another guy. Generally, if you're that worried about something, it's reflective of some sort of issue going on in your own head (not necessarily that you're gay, to be clear; just that it's not about the person in front of you so much as something bothering you internally).
That was totes a thing yes, and we're still seeing the effects of it today. I'm hearing far less of the slippery slope argumentation and there is LESS of the "My GeNdEr Is AtTaCk HeLiCoPtEr, LOLOLOL", which is good. (Probably helps that social media platforms seem to have less overlap between leftist and rightist camps nowadays, I'm sure.) But there's been overall less judgement and opposition to homosexuality which also means less organised opposition, whilst bi erasure is still very real and there's been real pushback against trans people, like that whole gender & sports debate. The Overton Window is shifting, but I don't know the extent to which that'll lead to positive change. It's been pretty slow in The Netherlands (though public spaces now GENERALLY use things like, "dear passengers" instead of "ladies and gentlemen"), but I'm optimistic - at least there's some good stuff baked into Dutch healthcare for people who are. In the US, it's a shame that it seems a lot needs to be done politically, not just socially; the former is worrisome, especially if the Supreme Court would get involved.
The existence of homophobia and transphobia have very little to do with individuals, their feelings towards LGBT people, or movements. Instead, they are better conceived of as a system of structures and institutions that prohibit deviation from a set of norms. It is also worth noting that they are not really able to be considered on their own, as they are not separate from other structures like race, class, and gender in particular.
When people act homophobically, it is not because they seek to deny self-expression on the part of LGBT people, nor do they particularly care about it. The same is true of men who allegedly feel “threatened” by LGBT people flirting with them. Nor is it conservative movements with “slippery slope” arguments that prevent progress (it is worth noting that progressives can be equally homophobic). These cases are merely symptomatic of the general structures.
Placing emphasis on individuals here leads to a number of strange outcomes. One instance is above, where it is apparently individuals’ fear of their own sexualities that causes homophobia. A related version of this is the “conservative politicians, etc” are actually homophobic because they are gay – as if gay people are the ones causing their own repression.
When analysing homophobia or transphobia you should first start with gender, and then move to what the material impacts on the group who is being oppressed are. Very little of this aligns with what the intent or the incentives of the oppressor group are, because they are also largely removed from the incentive structures and pervasive indoctrination that these systems cause. If we focus on the latter, we get the wrong results and this causes us to prioritise resources in the wrong ways.
A good example of the difference between these approaches is when we consider the difference between homophobia and biphobia (or bi erasure). Biphobia is not, by itself, a coherent concept. If you are a bi person who is experiencing oppression due to perceived same gender attraction, then that is misplaced homophobia. The oppression you feel has nothing to do with your actual identity, as the structures don’t differentiate between homo/bi/pan/whateversexual people. Rather, you are being punished for a perceived failure to meet the appropriate strictures of your presumed gender role. The same is true if you are a bi woman and experiencing the higher rates of domestic violence and sexual assault that bi women face. That is not “biphobia”, it is a manifestation of misogyny, and by misunderstanding the structures that cause it our attempts to help these people will be misguided. “Bi erasure” by itself, by contrast, has very little to do with material structures - at best it is individuals acting in a discriminatory ways. There is no structure that causes oppression here. It is definitely invalidating and upsetting, but it is not a form of oppression, and the amount of discursive space and resources it takes up in LGBT spaces and movements is disproportionate to its place in the structures of oppression. This is why it is important to conceive of these things in the right way.
I would also note that homophobia is not on the decline, and data from nearly all Western countries show that instances of homophobic and transphobic hate crimes etc. are on the rise. The only thing that has actually changed are rates of “acceptance” of LGBT people. But this again misplaces the cause of oppression. The fact that more people are tolerant of LGBT people does not free them from the still very real structures that continue to make their lives worse. This is the danger of the above view of how homophobia works – in misunderstanding causation we also misunderstand what the outcomes we seek should be, and LGBT people remain oppressed but celebrate minor and immaterial shifts in public opinion.
When people act homophobically, it is not because they seek to deny self-expression on the part of LGBT people, nor do they particularly care about it. The same is true of men who allegedly feel “threatened” by LGBT people flirting with them. Nor is it conservative movements with “slippery slope” arguments that prevent progress (it is worth noting that progressives can be equally homophobic). These cases are merely symptomatic of the general structures.
Placing emphasis on individuals here leads to a number of strange outcomes. One instance is above, where it is apparently individuals’ fear of their own sexualities that causes homophobia. A related version of this is the “conservative politicians, etc” are actually homophobic because they are gay – as if gay people are the ones causing their own repression.
When analysing homophobia or transphobia you should first start with gender, and then move to what the material impacts on the group who is being oppressed are. Very little of this aligns with what the intent or the incentives of the oppressor group are, because they are also largely removed from the incentive structures and pervasive indoctrination that these systems cause. If we focus on the latter, we get the wrong results and this causes us to prioritise resources in the wrong ways.
A good example of the difference between these approaches is when we consider the difference between homophobia and biphobia (or bi erasure). Biphobia is not, by itself, a coherent concept. If you are a bi person who is experiencing oppression due to perceived same gender attraction, then that is misplaced homophobia. The oppression you feel has nothing to do with your actual identity, as the structures don’t differentiate between homo/bi/pan/whateversexual people. Rather, you are being punished for a perceived failure to meet the appropriate strictures of your presumed gender role. The same is true if you are a bi woman and experiencing the higher rates of domestic violence and sexual assault that bi women face. That is not “biphobia”, it is a manifestation of misogyny, and by misunderstanding the structures that cause it our attempts to help these people will be misguided. “Bi erasure” by itself, by contrast, has very little to do with material structures - at best it is individuals acting in a discriminatory ways. There is no structure that causes oppression here. It is definitely invalidating and upsetting, but it is not a form of oppression, and the amount of discursive space and resources it takes up in LGBT spaces and movements is disproportionate to its place in the structures of oppression. This is why it is important to conceive of these things in the right way.
I would also note that homophobia is not on the decline, and data from nearly all Western countries show that instances of homophobic and transphobic hate crimes etc. are on the rise. The only thing that has actually changed are rates of “acceptance” of LGBT people. But this again misplaces the cause of oppression. The fact that more people are tolerant of LGBT people does not free them from the still very real structures that continue to make their lives worse. This is the danger of the above view of how homophobia works – in misunderstanding causation we also misunderstand what the outcomes we seek should be, and LGBT people remain oppressed but celebrate minor and immaterial shifts in public opinion.
Yeah a large issue for LGBTQIA+ issues is the lack of knowledge and the stubborn unwillingness to learn or accept people who are different from your beliefs. Unfortunately all of the prejudices and religion especially in the US really just forms a brick wall where people just shut out anything that isn't their opinion(hell this also applies to pretty much any form of identity, even political identity), I think the strides of introducing LGBTQIA+ topics in schools are certainly a big step forward but it's probably going to be some time we really ever see some fruits of the labor, especially since there's been a decline of acceptance in a lot of areas which isn't a pretty sign.
props to you for having the courage to come out regardless though it's tough to do.
props to you for having the courage to come out regardless though it's tough to do.
It reminds me of when I came out in high school. People were actually very supportive, especially the girl who I was dating when it happened. Looking back, she probably was the only one who had the right to be upset, but that wasn't really like her. I remember people saying things like "As long as you don't rub it in my face" and me being like "Nooooo of course not" like I was just glad they didn't actively hate me. One of my closest friends said "At least you're like... Talented. Like, you play piano and stuff... So you're one of the good ones." The implication being that if I didn't have some kind of skill I'd be worthless like gay people without talents? And I was okay with that too. Today you wouldn't get away with saying things like that to me.... But I also think a lot less people are actually saying it to begin with. Which is nice. I encounter pretty much no negativity about my sexuality in every day life. Even the gun-toting, Trump loving, women are not equal to men, socialism is the devil, bible-weaponizing guy at work is very friendly to me. He even flirts, lol.
Last edited:
Hey Hana!
I'm trans myself (use she/her), and I don't think i've OFFICIALLY came out here yet, so uhhh I guess I'm officially coming out now? Dunno.
That's like the physical worst I could write for a comeout post.
Nobody here can do worse.
in the last few days, i've had a good handful of people ask about my experience with detransitioning. not sure why multiple people have decided to ask me all around the same time, but it has led me to believe some explanation on my situation and feelings could maybe help some people. anything i say is just my personal experiences, and to those who are not LGBT or allies, my experience is not indicative of the typical transgender experience whatsoever, so don't use me detransitioning as a weapon against trans people in this community please.
i "officially" decided i was trans somewhat young, 14 or 15. at the time, and for the next maybe year, year and a half, i assumed being trans was this sort of magical thing in the sense that you can just flip a switch and change your gender. this is actually a shoddy "test" used by a lot of people in trans communities: "if you could flip a switch right now to make you a woman, would you flip it." "yes." "boom, you're trans." this is obviously foolish, but it shows the attitude of the LGBT and eventually just T communities i joined at a young age. at this time, i had not made any moves irl whatsoever. my "plan" was literally to transition after i finished college and got a professional job, expecting that when i started taking hormones i would just magically become a woman.
this is one of many cases of me not actually being interested in furthering my transition.
come senior year of highschool and my freshman year of college, this was probably the most depressing period in my life (also when i lost most of my friends, both irl and on here). i joined a trans discord that was loosely connected to 4chan's /lgbt/ board, and from there i joined multiple offshoot servers. to be clear, i don't think a server that is even remotely related to 4chan is a good place to be, and at the time i was smart enough to know to be suspicious of certain behaviors in there.
some good things came out of these communities, though. i made some good friends i still talk to to this day, and many older (mid to late 20s) transwomen who had been through the fire of it all gave me a realistic rundown. on one hand, i had people telling me transition is magical and will work out no matter what (the earlier people i alluded to), and on the other, i had people in these 4chan adjacent servers saying transition was all doom and gloom. the more mature people i met gave me a middle ground, a very realistic perspective on transition that gave me a lot to think of for the years to come. they explained to me what hormones and surgeries can and can't do, what transitioning is actually like (both the good and the bad), their experiences, how they came out of it feeling overall better about their lives, etc. in short, they showed me that transition isn't easy, but is worth it if you really want to go through with it.
i was never sure if i wanted to go through with it, though. i kinda decided that i was trans haphazardly. i have a sort of androgynous personality, leaning fem i guess? i like men (and women, but mostly men), so i would probably be happier as a woman, right? this is obviously a very backwards way of viewing gender, but it is coming from someone who has grown up around a very homophobic extended family, where most of the men are very proud of their machismo.
for the next few years, i didn't do much to further my transition. my appearance irl became more androgynous because of developing an eating disorder, growing out my hair, dressing more feminine, etc. i came out to a couple people irl, had a couple irl trans friends as well, but i was basically living in this in between. here is the big thing: whenever the opportunity arose for me to get on hormones, whether that be by official or unofficial means, i would put it off and dodge it. yes, a lot of the things hormones do the first few months are easily reversible, but some things aren't. i am an anxious person (not anymore, we'll get to that...), and my mind ruminated for years on the what ifs. "what if i want to go back" "what if i don't like the changes" etc. i spent a few years, from senior year of highschool to the time i made that post, living in that in between. my body dysmorphia was at an all time high, especially the first half of this period. my anxiety was through the roof. i was severely depressed. extremely suicidal.
at some point, my viewpoint became more flexible. i don't really know what changed it for me, probably just maturing, honestly. for one, i realized (so don't criticize my post up to this point for this) that being trans comes in all different shapes and sizes. some people opt to never transition medically, others are not simply mtf, etc. none of this stuff particularly applied to me, but it gave me the slightest bit more comfort living in that in between.
i finally realized, though, that this is no place to get comfortable. it had been what? 5 or 6 years??? and i had not really made much progress. something had to be done, so i decided to do SOMETHING. fuck it, i'll try not identifying as mtf for a bit. if it makes me feel worse, then i know i should jump on transition right away. if it makes me feel better, then i'm gucci.
that's where i am today. since a month or two before i made that post, around early september, i am no longer depressed. some things make me depressed sometimes, but that's a natural part of the human experience. my anxiety is a lot less severe. my body image is a lot better. i kicked my eating disorder (though gaining all these lbs from the holidays and then this quarantine isn't sitting right with me aha). i have not had any suicidal or self harm thoughts in a long time. once in a blue moon i get that voice in teh back of my head "this wont last." but i'm not exaggerating when i say it is probably 1000x less than the voice in my head that doubted transition. i feel better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one doesn't just go from wanting to be a woman to being fine with being a grown ass man overnight though, right?
in some ways my feelings are nonbinary, but i don't feel a need to identify or describe them in that way because simply put i am comfortable with being a man, so it is easier to identify as a man. path of least resistance. i also think i do have some degree of legitimate gender dysphoria, but when i weigh that desire to be a woman against my desire to not transition, the desire to not transition outweighs it severely. i am perfectly happy living as a man, and i would also be perfectly happy living as a woman. in short, i just don't give a shit about gender anymore. it is complicated, and i think i got too caught up in mixing both my negative body image with my feminine personality (which is more androgynous, for the record) and my sexuality, culminating in this desire to have those things line up as society typically wants them to line up: the thing that acts feminine is a woman.
what does it mean to be a man? what does it mean to be a woman? i don't really know, i don't think i care either though. well that's a lie, i kinda do. my perception of masculinity and how it relates to being a man was severely warped due to seeing those toxic aspects of masculinity in my surroundings and being a queer, sort of feminine person. i made being a man a negative thing (not in that altright incel type of way oh god) because i have grown up around so many men who embody those negative characteristics.
in short though, i just don't think i really give a shit about gender anymore. physically i would probably prefer to look more androgynous, but i've actually made an effort to look more masculine since detransitioning, and i don't know why but i prefer it. i was bullied a lot for my appearance in my formative years, and that probably played a part in me deciding i was transgender. all i know is that now i feel mostly good about my physical appearance.
my advice to anyone with similar thoughts it to make sure you are doing what is right for you. weigh your desire to transition against your desire to be a woman. if you don't want to transition, you don't have to. it's as simple as that. also, i think people need to think very long and hard before deciding on something like this. i am not joking when i say these types o feelings were not present prior to like what, the week? that i decided i was trans. i was one of those few cases of a confused kid with bad body image and identity issues. most people are not, though.
god bless you all.
this is one of many cases of me not actually being interested in furthering my transition.
come senior year of highschool and my freshman year of college, this was probably the most depressing period in my life (also when i lost most of my friends, both irl and on here). i joined a trans discord that was loosely connected to 4chan's /lgbt/ board, and from there i joined multiple offshoot servers. to be clear, i don't think a server that is even remotely related to 4chan is a good place to be, and at the time i was smart enough to know to be suspicious of certain behaviors in there.
some good things came out of these communities, though. i made some good friends i still talk to to this day, and many older (mid to late 20s) transwomen who had been through the fire of it all gave me a realistic rundown. on one hand, i had people telling me transition is magical and will work out no matter what (the earlier people i alluded to), and on the other, i had people in these 4chan adjacent servers saying transition was all doom and gloom. the more mature people i met gave me a middle ground, a very realistic perspective on transition that gave me a lot to think of for the years to come. they explained to me what hormones and surgeries can and can't do, what transitioning is actually like (both the good and the bad), their experiences, how they came out of it feeling overall better about their lives, etc. in short, they showed me that transition isn't easy, but is worth it if you really want to go through with it.
i was never sure if i wanted to go through with it, though. i kinda decided that i was trans haphazardly. i have a sort of androgynous personality, leaning fem i guess? i like men (and women, but mostly men), so i would probably be happier as a woman, right? this is obviously a very backwards way of viewing gender, but it is coming from someone who has grown up around a very homophobic extended family, where most of the men are very proud of their machismo.
for the next few years, i didn't do much to further my transition. my appearance irl became more androgynous because of developing an eating disorder, growing out my hair, dressing more feminine, etc. i came out to a couple people irl, had a couple irl trans friends as well, but i was basically living in this in between. here is the big thing: whenever the opportunity arose for me to get on hormones, whether that be by official or unofficial means, i would put it off and dodge it. yes, a lot of the things hormones do the first few months are easily reversible, but some things aren't. i am an anxious person (not anymore, we'll get to that...), and my mind ruminated for years on the what ifs. "what if i want to go back" "what if i don't like the changes" etc. i spent a few years, from senior year of highschool to the time i made that post, living in that in between. my body dysmorphia was at an all time high, especially the first half of this period. my anxiety was through the roof. i was severely depressed. extremely suicidal.
at some point, my viewpoint became more flexible. i don't really know what changed it for me, probably just maturing, honestly. for one, i realized (so don't criticize my post up to this point for this) that being trans comes in all different shapes and sizes. some people opt to never transition medically, others are not simply mtf, etc. none of this stuff particularly applied to me, but it gave me the slightest bit more comfort living in that in between.
i finally realized, though, that this is no place to get comfortable. it had been what? 5 or 6 years??? and i had not really made much progress. something had to be done, so i decided to do SOMETHING. fuck it, i'll try not identifying as mtf for a bit. if it makes me feel worse, then i know i should jump on transition right away. if it makes me feel better, then i'm gucci.
that's where i am today. since a month or two before i made that post, around early september, i am no longer depressed. some things make me depressed sometimes, but that's a natural part of the human experience. my anxiety is a lot less severe. my body image is a lot better. i kicked my eating disorder (though gaining all these lbs from the holidays and then this quarantine isn't sitting right with me aha). i have not had any suicidal or self harm thoughts in a long time. once in a blue moon i get that voice in teh back of my head "this wont last." but i'm not exaggerating when i say it is probably 1000x less than the voice in my head that doubted transition. i feel better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one doesn't just go from wanting to be a woman to being fine with being a grown ass man overnight though, right?
in some ways my feelings are nonbinary, but i don't feel a need to identify or describe them in that way because simply put i am comfortable with being a man, so it is easier to identify as a man. path of least resistance. i also think i do have some degree of legitimate gender dysphoria, but when i weigh that desire to be a woman against my desire to not transition, the desire to not transition outweighs it severely. i am perfectly happy living as a man, and i would also be perfectly happy living as a woman. in short, i just don't give a shit about gender anymore. it is complicated, and i think i got too caught up in mixing both my negative body image with my feminine personality (which is more androgynous, for the record) and my sexuality, culminating in this desire to have those things line up as society typically wants them to line up: the thing that acts feminine is a woman.
what does it mean to be a man? what does it mean to be a woman? i don't really know, i don't think i care either though. well that's a lie, i kinda do. my perception of masculinity and how it relates to being a man was severely warped due to seeing those toxic aspects of masculinity in my surroundings and being a queer, sort of feminine person. i made being a man a negative thing (not in that altright incel type of way oh god) because i have grown up around so many men who embody those negative characteristics.
in short though, i just don't think i really give a shit about gender anymore. physically i would probably prefer to look more androgynous, but i've actually made an effort to look more masculine since detransitioning, and i don't know why but i prefer it. i was bullied a lot for my appearance in my formative years, and that probably played a part in me deciding i was transgender. all i know is that now i feel mostly good about my physical appearance.
my advice to anyone with similar thoughts it to make sure you are doing what is right for you. weigh your desire to transition against your desire to be a woman. if you don't want to transition, you don't have to. it's as simple as that. also, i think people need to think very long and hard before deciding on something like this. i am not joking when i say these types o feelings were not present prior to like what, the week? that i decided i was trans. i was one of those few cases of a confused kid with bad body image and identity issues. most people are not, though.
god bless you all.
Let’s talk about Pokepride. This isn’t a callout or directed at anyone in particular, but I will be taking some examples to make the point. If you think this is about you, don’t take it personally – I think this is a good opportunity for all of us to think and reflect on what this space should be. Some initial thoughts:
- I am posting this here because it has been made abundantly clear that discussion about practices, or anything really, is not allowed in the server. When raised in the chat, or with the moderation team, any criticism is either ignored or summarily shut down with absolutely no self-reflection. We’ve also been directed to take discussion that can’t happen there, here. Voila.
- Some of you will probably see this as the continued ramblings and insurrection of one or two disgruntled homosexuals, and be tempted to dismiss this on that basis. I would note, however, that the server has an active userbase of about 15, and about half of them share these concerns but have thought it fruitless to bring it up to the moderation team, as they (rightly) believe they will be either ignored or kicked.
- It is important to note that the server is at least quasi-official. It is advertised in the only LGBT discussion thread on the forum, is relatively entrenched, and advertises itself as such in other discords and on PS. This makes it open to critique, and thoughts like “why not go elsewhere” are misguided at best. At the very least, your representations should somewhat align with what you are providing.
- It’s also clear some of you don’t like me. That’s fine, engage with this in good faith regardless. I think very little of this should have anything to do with me, or any other individual in particular, and I’d hate for this opportunity to improve the server to simply collapse into pointless mudslinging.
- There is a complete lack of discussion. Queer spaces have historically been, and remain, one of the only places LGBT people from different backgrounds can come together to learn from one another, facilitate a better understanding of our shared identities, histories, and politics, as well as to organise and mobilise with one another. I can appreciate a desire to also cater to people who do not want that, and would rather socialise, vent, or just want solidarity. But these two cannot and should not be separated. For instance, a lack of understanding of the relative power dynamics between users in a server that also caters to allies has caused many users of the server to feel alienated and discriminated against by those users. When those issues are brought up with server staff, they have been dismissed. The saturation of the Discord by allies displaces the experiences of LGBT people, especially those that the server is apparently setting itself out to protect. Trite responses and often directly harmful advice are the most common response to venting. If you want another 1v1 Discord, make one and have fun there. But don’t pretend you’re doing something different. Another example is its attempt to be apolitical, but to apply this in oddly asymmetric ways. Supporting the US military, an actively homophobic and transphobic institution responsible for the deaths of LGBT people and PoC around the world and an instrument of neo-imperialism? Fine. Supporting Israel, responsible for much the same? Fine. Promoting and protecting users who have spread transphobic nonsense about bone density defining gender? Also, fine. But if those things are challenged or even vaguely radical views are put forward, they are shut down immediately. This seems perverse.
- This lack of discussion also hurts LGBT people in general. A significant part of LGBT spaces is helping people uncover and understand their identities, particularly when they lack knowledge on the subject. How can you fully understand your identity as a trans woman without an understanding of gender? You can’t. How can you know what it is to be a gay man without understanding its constituent identity? It is not even a coherent concept. It is discussions like these, however, that are routinely shut down for fear of upsetting people, or the balance of the server. The mechanism for this is typically claiming that whatever channel the discussion was being had in was not the appropriate forum for that discussion, in spite of the fact that the discussion had grown out of that channel organically. A few of us suggested that a discussion channel might be a reasonable compromise. In fact, I cannot see a single reason not to implement such a policy. It was denied.
- There is a complete lack of accountability. Rules are applied asymmetrically. Another user posted a piece of rather explicit gay literature. He was banned. This, by itself, is probably defensible. But then myself and another user enquired after this, making more or less the same points. I was banned, they were not. Today, when an admin posted even more explicit references to pornography, and was rightly questioned about it, the questioner was simply told to stop asking. The proposed approach is to instead message an admin. But when users who do so are dismissed in PM, then mocked and derided in separate mod chats, how can they really approach this? Or alternatively, when enquiring about a decision, they are directly lied to by the administrator they asked. If you want to ban all NSFW content, then do so, but apply it appropriately and to yourselves. It is deeply unclear to me why an apparently progressive administration team would not have any kind of public accountability mechanisms, and seek to actively shut down the few that exist. Pokepride is an interesting balance – it seeks to maintain a LGBT space where minors and adults discuss things, where both are usually coming from very vulnerable backgrounds, often with histories of abuse. I think it is very dangerous to allow this to continue, for rather obvious reasons.
I am gonna say something rn.
I have never played the "fall in love" deck of cards(Metaphor)and I think super different(like,so lit)and Im very passionate whether in a game or IRL, if I see someone doubting themselves/crying, I give them hugs and things like that.
Just saying, I also can get very angry, too, so I like to see friendly communities.
Wow nice to see ppl like my personality
I have never played the "fall in love" deck of cards(Metaphor)and I think super different(like,so lit)and Im very passionate whether in a game or IRL, if I see someone doubting themselves/crying, I give them hugs and things like that.
Just saying, I also can get very angry, too, so I like to see friendly communities.
Wow nice to see ppl like my personality
Last edited: