Social LGBTQIA+

[pulsar512b]

What I'd say about the split attraction model is that it's a thing, and it's valid if you identify that way and I have no problems with that, but note that sometimes (not necessarily!) thinking that the attractions are different is due to (internalized) homophobia.

Also, relevant comic:

 

[Myzozoa]

#2 Sounds like a homophobic parent telling their child "you are confused, you are not gay" don't be a hypocrite dude

This is a bit ironic to me considering all the gay girls in strict christian households who are going to identify as asexual at one point or another even into adulthood...

I think yall are going too far in perma-banning crux in response to parts of posts that are basically a minutiae reminding us that is possible for a person to be asexual and still be straight and cis. No one is leveling attacks at asexual or aromantic people, nor dismissing their oppression, or claiming that they are analogous to terfs (re read the post, crux's brought up terfs in reference to an argument that inclusion is good for it's own sake because it adds people to the movement, if this was the case we should just add an S or an H to lgbtq so that we can include hets..., or even a C for conservatives). Crux did not even claim that heterosexual asexuals have 'straight privilege'. Their focus is clearly calling into question the split-attraction model, and identifying the ways in which promotion of the split attraction model may be out of alignment with the goals of an lgbtq+ movement. Their focus is not on excluding asexuals out of some personal bigotry against them.

I do not think crux's posts warrant being permanently banned. Even if you disagree with the content (for example, I do not agree that it is strictly the onus of a group/individual seeking inclusion to justify what they bring to a movement in order to be included and I do think that asexuals are oppressed in ways that are connected to lgbtq oppression, in fact, I think crux believes this as well, they just don't agree with the promotion of the split attraction model) or think the posts are obnoxious, I think there is a less final way to handle the situation than perma-banning crux who has been a great presence in this community and has helped and counseled many trans and non-binary users on this site. Making crux a pariah user is frankly unsettling because crux is one of the premier serious gay users on this site who isn't just interested in making everyone feel valid, regardless of how problematic they or their beliefs are, but is actually interested in protecting users from being harmed by nonsense ideas and notions that are becoming ever more widespread due to the shift to disorganized online affinity groups. I feel Crux is valuable to the community and maybe they should be less obnoxious, but accusing them of hate is a pretty extreme take on their recent posts I feel.

 

[dhelmise]

This is a bit ironic to me considering all the gay girls in strict christian households who are going to identify as asexual at one point or another even into adulthood...

I think yall are going too far in perma-banning crux in response to parts of posts that are basically a minutiae reminding us that is possible for a person to be asexual and still be straight and cis. No one is leveling attacks at asexual or aromantic people, nor dismissing their oppression, or claiming that they are analogous to terfs (re read the post, crux's brought up terfs in reference to an argument that inclusion is good for it's own sake because it adds people to the movement, if this was the case we should just add an S or an H to lgbtq so that we can include hets..., or even a C for conservatives). Crux did not even claim that heterosexual asexuals have 'straight privilege'. Their focus is clearly calling into question the split-attraction model, and identifying the ways in which promotion of the split attraction model may be out of alignment with the goals of an lgbtq+ movement. Their focus is not on excluding asexuals out of some personal bigotry against them.

I do not think crux's posts warrant being permanently banned. Even if you disagree with the content (for example, I do not agree that it is strictly the onus of a group/individual seeking inclusion to justify what they bring to a movement in order to be included and I do think that asexuals are oppressed in ways that are connected to lgbtq oppression, in fact, I think crux believes this as well, they just don't agree with the promotion of the split attraction model) or think the posts are obnoxious, I think there is a less final way to handle the situation than perma-banning crux who has been a great presence in this community and has helped and counseled many trans and non-binary users on this site. Making crux a pariah user is frankly unsettling because crux is one of the premier serious gay users on this site who isn't just interested in making everyone feel valid, regardless of how problematic they or their beliefs are, but is actually interested in protecting users from being harmed by nonsense ideas and notions that are becoming ever more widespread due to the shift to disorganized online affinity groups. I feel Crux is valuable to the community and maybe they should be less obnoxious, but accusing them of hate is a pretty extreme take on their recent posts I feel.

Crux was banned for more than just his bad posts here, which I felt should’ve been obvious but I guess not since he hid the reasons he was banned from PokePride, the 1v1 server, and the tours discord from real gays. Not really my place to expose him but he’s not innocent here.

 

[Tramuntana]

Almost a year since I made that suicide-preventio post, and still receiving reacts on it. You guys really love digging through those messageboards...

 

[TheValkyries]

I was going to post something longer but I’m just going to post this instead.

Don’t even have to read the book just grapple with the title.

Crux is being banned for *squints* (correctly) pushing for better moderation in various discords and being retaliated against by moderators and now for his arguements against the split attraction model and the bad faith readings people have put on his posts.

Honestly: just own the fact that crux is being banned because he is challenging and difficult and not because of any real behavioral demerits. Just because he creates conflict doesn’t mean he’s causing real harm, and the vast majority of his arguments are in the interest of protecting people from harm.

 

[dhelmise]

I was going to post something longer but I’m just going to post this instead.

View attachment 299004

Don’t even have to read the book just grapple with the title.

Crux is being banned for *squints* (correctly) pushing for better moderation in various discords and being retaliated against by moderators and now for his arguements against the split attraction model and the bad faith readings people have put on his posts.

Honestly: just own the fact that crux is being banned because he is challenging and difficult and not because of any real behavioral demerits. Just because he creates conflict doesn’t mean he’s causing real harm, and the vast majority of his arguments are in the interest of protecting people from harm.

No

e: to clarify that’s not why he was banned

 

[TheValkyries]

Given the number of times crux has been unfairly permabanned because of moderator beef with his insufferable personality (all cases obviously were then overturned), you’re going to have to actually be more specific then just vagueposting about more sinister unstated reasons.

Well I guess you don’t *have* to. I guess it’s within the realm of possibility that you just play with 0 transparency making it so that you never have to justify a moderation move. Honestly that’s the headier play.

 

[dhelmise]

Given the number of times crux has been unfairly permabanned because of moderator beef with his insufferable personality (all cases obviously were then overturned), you’re going to have to actually be more specific then just vagueposting about more sinister unstated reasons.

Well I guess you don’t *have* to. I guess it’s within the realm of possibility that you just play with 0 transparency making it so that you never have to justify a moderation move. Honestly that’s the headier play.

I actually did go into specifics for what collectively got him permabanned (again) in another post but it got deleted because that is not relevant to this thread’s topic, and it’s unfair to air out someone else’s dirty laundry. Someone who was permabanned in 2014 for constantly starting drama only to return in 2020 to the same exact thing should not shock a soul.

He isn’t a victim of moderator beef. He’s just a bad user.

 

[Sacri']

No

e: to clarify that’s not why he was banned

you can keep on repeating this all you want, it is very unsettling that crux was permabanned almost immediately after a post calling out his "harmful beliefs" (or whatever you want to call them) garnered far more support than is usual for this thread. w/ that being said, I also happen to know half of the reasons he was banned for were greatly overstated (for instance i was there for almost all the "harassement towards stours mod" and even labelling it as such is ridiculous/ borderline homophobic if you want me to overstate harm myself :p). no matter how annoying crux's tone/antics may be, I know and have witnessed first hand (and personally benefited from) his drive to help other lgbt people better understand sexuality/gender. the past few exchanges regarding ace identities kept delivering some of the most blatantly bad faith and dishonest interpretations of his posts. i understand that some of these discussions may be difficult to handle but it doesn't mean they arent important and cant be beneficial for the community. as things stand, there's no way to interpret the events that took place yesterday as anything other than an attempt to shut someone up for challenging others views on important issues for the lgbt community.

 

[TheValkyries]

I actually did go into specifics for what collectively got him permabanned (again) in another post but it got deleted because that is not relevant to this thread’s topic

Sorry, where is the thread where we can talk about this then? Or again, is the modus operandi to just not be transparent ever? Fucking weird how a guy is a problem user for *squints again checking notes* antagonizing the moderator team for stricter standards and better moderation.

Weird how there might be something worth talking about to a sudden unprompted banning of a user like that.

Maybe you right, maybe we shouldn't challenge the mod team and should just let pedophiles be a part of the admin team like we used to.

 

[termi]

All the same accusations are coming back up again: that identifying as bi/homosexual but aromantic or asexual but bi/homoromantic is actually offensive and reinforces internalized homophobia, that aces and aros benefit from cishet privilege and therefore shouldn't be included within the LGBTQ+ community, that aces and aros are attempting to "sneak into" spaces that don't belong to them. These are the exact same arguments that I've been hearing for more than 20 years for why bisexuals don't belong in queer spaces.

I believe you are reading far more hostility into Crux's posts than is actually present. First of all, the argument that ace/aro persons shouldn't be included within the LGBT community only exists for those ace/aro persons who still identify as heteroromantic/heterosexual respectively. This does not mean that these people cannot struggle with their sexuality, and in fact I would not at all be surprised that they struggle with this more than the average person since feeling such a disconnect from sexuality in a society that is highly sexualized is of course likely to cause some mental anguish. However, struggling with one's own sexual identity or deviating from "the norm" does not necessarily grant one access to the LGBT community. This is obvious in other cases. We do not grant access to the LGBT community to, say, heterosexual persons who have faced sexual trauma in the past and as a result often feel a great deal of confusion and anguish over the sexual feelings they experience. Some heterosexual persons identify as furries and experience attraction to anthropomorphized animals, something that from what I've seen online seems to both greatly impact how they think about themselves and how others think of them. Of course this does not mean these people do not deserve sympathy or care or spaces in which they can talk to people with similar experiences and self-understandings, but I simply mean that experiencing difficulties with sexuality or having a sexual self-understanding that is divergent from the norm is not enough to "be LGBT". Why is this the case? Because we understand the LGBT community to be a political community, not an affinity group. The goal of LGBT politics is not to validate everyone's identity and provide a space in which similar-minded people can pal around, but to tear down oppressive laws, norms, and political institutions that keep LGBT people subjugated.

You mention that "this feels like gatekeeping" and you are correct, this is gatekeeping. But gatekeeping is done for a reason. In order for the LGBT community to maintain some coherence as a political movement - already difficult enough given that it has always been an awkward coalition - there have to be boundaries that determine who counts as part of the community and who doesn't. This is not to say that any group that is not already in has no chance of getting in, but any further addition to the community should at least be properly justified. The current impulse among liberals is to simply assume that by default, just about any sexually marginal (or "queer") group can be part of the community if they so desire. This eventually begins to dilute the original reason for the LGBT community's existence, that is to say, a shared social oppression on the basis of norms regarding gender and sexuality. If asexual people can convincingly make the case that by virtue of their asexuality (rather than because of other factors) they are excluded from sharing in cisheterosexual privilege and face oppression on the basis of their sexuality, it might be completely justified to include them. However, it appears to me that their inclusion has already begun to be normalized without there ever being serious discourse on the grounds for their inclusion, and anytime one begins to start a discussion it is met with accusations of hostility and "acephobia" - without establishing what acephobia entails, why it is capital O Oppression, why it is similar to homophobia or transphobia.

Now, I understand that it may be uncomfortable for people (especially those who identify as ace/aro) to hear someone like Crux say, in his classic antagonizing tone, that asexuals are not inherently LGBT, and it may as a result be difficult to assume good faith and to engage with his arguments. However, this is in fact an important discussion that is worth having and one that has not been properly "decided" yet in the way that, say, the discussion regarding trans people's inclusion has been. Nobody should feel obliged to participate if they don't want to, but please don't assume that any challenge to inclusion is by necessity bigotry or close-mindedness. This goes for the people who determined that Crux apparently deserved a ban for trying to initiate a discussion on the subject more than anyone else.

I could reply to more parts of Hogg's posts or other people's posts in this thread but for the moment I think I have said what I wanted to say. I would lastly just like to point out that everyone should read this post Crux made back in March if they are remotely interested in LGBT politics and some of the issues discussed on the last couple of pages because it is frankly pretty excellent and you should really read this if you want to engage in a good faith discussion on LGBT politics.

 

[dhelmise]

you can keep on repeating this all you want, it is very unsettling that crux was permabanned almost immediately after a post calling out his "harmful beliefs" (or whatever you want to call them) garnered far more support than is usual for this thread.

I doubt you'll believe me, but this was just a matter of poor timing.

w/ that being said, I also happen to know half of the reasons he was banned for were greatly overstated (for instance i was there for almost all the "harassement towards stours mod" and even labelling it as such is ridiculous/ borderline homophobic if you want me to overstate harm myself :p).

If that's how you feel, then okay. I'm an admin in the PokePride Discord, as you're probably aware since you are also in the discord, and Rosa is as well--she is also a 1v1 mod, so she can speak on that regard. Also, to quote the post you're referring:

I can not speak as confidently on the why he was banned from the Tours discord, but I would imagine it has something to do with his constant harassment of the mod team there, i.e. consistently quizzing them on LGBTQ+ obscurities or texts that I (or any rational person) really don't expect to know or read off the tip of their tongue, and then moving on to harass them further by "jokingly" calling them slurs when their answer does not appeal to him and then asking even more questions. This is not the listed reason, though. He was banned for suggesting death on people and in general required a lot of moderation to the point where the mod team got sick of dealing with him.

It seems you misinterpreted my post? I gave the actual reason he was banned.

no matter how annoying crux's tone/antics may be, I know and have witnessed first hand (and personally benefited from) his drive to help other lgbt people better understand sexuality/gender.

Again, I never said this was untrue, and I don't think anyone was denying that he wants to help educate people and help them discover their identities.

the past few exchanges regarding ace identities kept delivering some of the most blatantly bad faith and dishonest interpretations of his posts.

I don't think responding defensively to being told your queer identity is invalid is "bad faith".

i understand that some of these discussions may be difficult to handle but it doesn't mean they arent important and cant be beneficial for the community.

I agree; there's a multitude of controversial topics for the community as a whole to discuss, and I think Crux had good intention in attempting to bring them up. However, It's extremely uncomfortable for a user to come out as asexual (the validity of which I frankly don't care to discuss) and then have Crux immediately follow up with telling them they are not valid.

as things stand, there's no way to interpret the events that took place yesterday as anything other than an attempt to shut someone up for challenging others views on important issues for the lgbt community.

Still wrong, but like I said in my (now deleted) post explaining in-depth why Crux was banned, it's clear where you stand on this and I doubt I will be able to convince you, so just have fun continuing to believe this.

Sorry, where is the thread where we can talk about this then? Or again, is the modus operandi to just not be transparent ever? Fucking weird how a guy is a problem user for *squints again checking notes* antagonizing the moderator team for stricter standards and better moderation.

PM Senior Staff or something? He is a problem user for other things; antagonizing and criticizing the mod team for being too lax was not a reason for why he was banned at all and if it were, I would've held more issue with his ban as well, seeing as I--in this very thread--called out the cong mods for neglecting this thread.

Weird how there might be something worth talking about to a sudden unprompted banning of a user like that.

I mean if you find his ban unprompted, then more power to you. Crux was permabanned for being nothing short of a pain in the ass for a long time, anyone without tunnel vision could've seen this coming from a mile away.

Maybe you right, maybe we shouldn't challenge the mod team and should just let pedophiles be a part of the admin team like we used to.

Very unsure where I said or implied this and I take issue with your implication that I'm okay with pedophilia. Grow up.

 

[talah]

I doubt you'll believe me, but this was just a matter of poor timing.

If that's how you feel, then okay. I'm an admin in the PokePride Discord, as you're probably aware since you are also in the discord, and Rosa is as well--she is also a 1v1 mod, so she can speak on that regard. Also, to quote the post you're referring:

It seems you misinterpreted my post? I gave the actual reason he was banned.

Again, I never said this was untrue, and I don't think anyone was denying that he wants to help educate people and help them discover their identities.

I don't think responding defensively to being told your queer identity is invalid is "bad faith".

I agree; there's a multitude of controversial topics for the community as a whole to discuss, and I think Crux had good intention in attempting to bring them up. However, It's extremely uncomfortable for a user to come out as asexual (the validity of which I frankly don't care to discuss) and then have Crux immediately follow up with telling them they are not valid.

Still wrong, but like I said in my (now deleted) post explaining in-depth why Crux was banned, it's clear where you stand on this and I doubt I will be able to convince you, so just have fun continuing to believe this.


PM Senior Staff or something? He is a problem user for other things; antagonizing and criticizing the mod team for being too lax was not a reason for why he was banned at all and if it were, I would've held more issue with his ban as well, seeing as I--in this very thread--called out the cong mods for neglecting this thread.

I mean if you find his ban unprompted, then more power to you. Crux was permabanned for being nothing short of a pain in the ass for a long time, anyone without tunnel vision could've seen this coming from a mile away.

Very unsure where I said or implied this and I take issue with your implication that I'm okay with pedophilia. Grow up.

You did not give the actual reason he was banned; I would know as a SmogTours mod. The actual reason he was banned was for instigating 'drama'(bringing up controversial topics mainly), it had nothing to do with his joke quizzes or anything with the moderation team. Whether you want to impose judgment on him for the actual reason is up to you, but your post is blatantly wrong about that.

 

[dhelmise]

You did not give the actual reason he was banned; I would know as a SmogTours mod. The actual reason he was banned was for instigating 'drama'(bringing up controversial topics mainly), it had nothing to do with his joke quizzes or anything with the moderation team. Whether you want to impose judgment on him for the actual reason is up to you, but your post is blatantly wrong about that.

I got my reason from a member of the TD team.

 

[TheValkyries]

PMing senior stuff is not an open forum for discussion lmao. There's no accountability hiding away discussions like these in private messages.

And yeah. Crux is a pain in the ass. Is that actually a bannable offense? If it is, why the fuck haven't countless other problem causing users been banned earlier all over this forum? Why is Crux suddenly being banned under the offense of being a douchebag asshat.

And the implication isn't that you're okay with pedophilia, it's that the moderation team of this website has a real fucking bad reputation historically and it's not a good look for you to try and paint yourself with a holier than thou brush in that context. You haven't earned an ounce of trust.

I got my reason from a member of the TD team.

Is this a backpeddle, a shift of blame or what? What's going on here? What fucking kind of moderator response is this?

 

[talah]

I got my reason from a member of the TD team.

Do you literally need me to post a detailed log exchange from the moderation channel I can currently access as for why he was banned? He was banned for instigating, it had nothing to do with the mod team, of which I was and currently am a part of, and participated in the discussion of his ban.

 

[Coconut]

please keep things civil and on-topic.

thanks.

 

[selfie]

update part 2?

now I've never been the type of person to enjoy PDA in general (at all, literally)
heck, when I was still actively dating only girls, I wouldn't even like holdings hands - but I feel like this had a lot to do with me being uncomfortable with my own sexuality and so it just turned into anxiety and feeling like everyone was looking at me

but as of recently my boyfriend and I celebrated our one year and although everything is closed because pandemic and such, I've felt so much more comfortable being affectionate in public which I feel like is such a big step for me? idk maybe I'm over-exaggerating but we love breaking down my anxiety around PDA/internalized homophobia!!

 

[Fresher Than You]

Honest suggestion: make an LGBTQ+ Safe space thread (this one) and a seperate LGBT Politics thread.

People who want general advice and support or just to be told they look pretty can be, and those who want a full discussion about the political nuances can. I can't be the only one who wants to just come here and talk about people's experiences without getting a full thesis on why they're not important, actually.

On a similar note, I understand that our identity has become inherently political, but that doesn't mean that every moment of our being, every single discussion we have, every fibre in our bodies, needs to be politicised (is that a word?). I don't want to wake up, have breakfast, fight corrupt systems and combat homophobic regimes, go to bed. I want to be able to talk to people or rant about my experiences or listen to others rant about theirs without someone making a fucking shakesperian play or greek epic poem describing in precise detail why everything I do and say and think is wrong.

To do what I just said I actually wanted to do: does anyone have any advice on getting 'womens' clothes for someone who still looks (at least recognisably, I don't have a big beard or anything) male? What clothes do you think could work? ANy general tips on getting gender neutral fashion?

 

[Peary]

To do what I just said I actually wanted to do: does anyone have any advice on getting 'womens' clothes for someone who still looks (at least recognisably, I don't have a big beard or anything) male? What clothes do you think could work? ANy general tips on getting gender neutral fashion?

Gender neutral fashion for me includes oversized hoodies, jeans, any shoes that have both women’s and men’s pairs of the same shoe (nike for example), some sweatpants (really just depends on the sweatpants), t shirts that aren’t overly “masculine” or “feminine”, Some Sweaters (again it really depends on the sweater), any jackets & coats that have the same jacket/coat in both men’s & women’s sizes, scarves, gloves, beanies, etc.

 

[blank]

Honest suggestion: make an LGBTQ+ Safe space thread (this one) and a seperate LGBT Politics thread.

honest response: no.

LGBT politics should not be separated from other LGBT topics. it is important for us to be cognizant of how politics affects us since LGBT existence is inherently political.

 

[selfie]

honest response: no.

LGBT politics should not be separated from other LGBT topics. it is important for us to be cognizant of how politics affects us since LGBT existence is inherently political.

While I think this is well-intentioned, folks should not have to defend themselves and their identity in a safe-space. I agree that it is important to be cognizant, but as Fresher Than You stated, " that doesn't mean that every moment of our being, every single discussion we have, every fiber in our bodies, needs to be politicized". It gets tiring to have to constantly defend who you are and answers questions/defend yourself. Safe spaces are supposed to be just that, a safe space free from the exhausting battle that is living everyday as an LGBTQ+ individual.

edit: forgot to add, that I agree that educating others and giving our opinions on certain issues is certainly helpful, however having to be in the educator seat 24/7 is exhausting and not having a space to go to to be free from that (at least for awhile) can attribute to his exhaustion.

 

[blank]

While I think this is well-intentioned, folks should not have to defend themselves and their identity in a safe-space. I agree that it is important to be cognizant, but as Fresher Than You stated, " that doesn't mean that every moment of our being, every single discussion we have, every fiber in our bodies, needs to be politicized". It gets tiring to have to constantly defend who you are and answers questions/defend yourself. Safe spaces are supposed to be just that, a safe space free from the exhausting battle that is living everyday as an LGBTQ+ individual.

this does not conflict with what i said whatsoever. you can still have a queer “safe space” without detaching it from politics.

 

[selfie]

this does not conflict with what i said whatsoever. you can still have a queer “safe space” without detaching it from politics.

Politics are inherently confrontational, and individuals tend to argue over differing ideals - at least from my lived experiences. Inserting politics in a safe space brings room for dialogue that can force groups apart rather than coming together and separate a community. If you truly want a safe space, it's better to separate politics from that space and open dialogue through a separate avenue.

Let me be clear, I agree that LGBTQ+ issues are extremely important to have dialogue about - however I just feel like a "safe space" is not necessarily the place for these discussions.

edit: Last edit (yikes), I do agree that the state of the thread right now is not a safe space - I'm just commenting on the idea of using it as one and separating political discussions.

 

[Fresher Than You]

I had a response but I don't really think it made sense so I'll just have this instead.

I want a safe space. I was hoping that this thread was it, and specfically because of drama and debating it wasn't. Politics are integral to LGBT, I know this, I just don't want to have to wade through posts to get to stuff that's relevant to me.