Because, contrary to what you seem to think, you do not know more about queerness than actual queer people.
- Sexual and romantic orientation don't always match up.
Sexual orientation is, simply put, who you are sexually attracted to and interested in. If you are a woman who is sexually attracted only to men, or primarily to men and occasionally to nonbinary people, you are heterosexual. If you are a man who is sexually attracted only to men, or primarily to men and occasionally to nonbinary people (see number two), you are homosexual. If you are attracted to your own gender - or lack thereof - as well as at least one other gender, you are bisexual. If you are attracted to multiple genders but not necessarily your own, you are polysexual. If you are attracted to an infinite number of genders or gender doesn't matter to you in sexual attraction, you are pansexual. If you experience little to no sexual attraction or have little to no desire to be in a sexual relationship, you are asexual.
Romantic orientation is...basically sexual attraction, but instead of or in addition to being sexual, the attraction is romantic. A heteroromantic woman is romantically attracted only/primarily to men, a heteroromantic man is a man who is romantically attracted only/primarily to women, a homoromantic woman is romantically attracted only/primarily to women, a homoromantic man is romantically attracted only/primarily to men, a biromantic person is romantically attracted to their own gender and others, and so on and so forth.
It is therefore possible to, for example, be both aroflux lesbian and gray-bisexual, like me; or a lesbian and autochorissexual, like Freyja. It's also possible to be bisexual and heteroromantic or homoromantic, homosexual and heteroromantic or biromantic, asexual and panromantic, pansexual and aromantic, and so on and so forth.
And it's also possible to be heterosexual and homoromantic, heterosexual and biromantic, heterosexual and panromantic, and so on and so forth. In other words, it is in fact possible for a queer couple to have romance but not sex. Or sex but not romance. Or both romance and sex. Or, hey, maybe even neither sex nor romance (queer relationships are incredibly diverse). So next time you assume being queer is just about lust and selfishness (I have actually heard this before. Poor brainwashed Christian), you might want to consider that maybe, just maybe, they might actually be not sexually attracted to their same gender at all. And if they are? It's none of your fucking business. Pun intended.
5. Platonic love is just as strong as romantic love, just as valid, and just as important. We live in a culture where romantic relationships (especially hetero ones) are promoted above platonic relationships as superior, the default, and more desirable. This hurts aromantic people, or aros, who are often called broken or told that they just need to find that magical 'special someone'...who will of course be the opposite of their perceived gender.
You know who that 'special someone' is for me? My friends and family. And I can't understand why anyone would consider my platonic love for the people in my life to be inferior to romantic love, something that baffles me and frankly seems like some sort of strange disease, when I would die for the people I love.
Yes, there is a girl I'm romantically interested in right now...but my feelings for her fluctuate between romantic-and-wanting-to-do-romantically-coded-things and platonic-but-still-wanting-to-do-romantically-coded-things. And neither my romantic feelings nor my platonic feelings for her are inferior. No one is required to be queer in a way that makes YOU comfortable.
Yes, there is a girl I'm romantically interested in right now...but my feelings for her fluctuate between romantic-and-wanting-to-do-romantically-coded-things and platonic-but-still-wanting-to-do-romantically-coded-things. And neither my romantic feelings nor my platonic feelings for her are inferior. No one is required to be queer in a way that makes YOU comfortable.
So take your amatonormativity and heteronormativity and stuff it up your collective ass. Aros aren't interested.
6. There are femme lesbian and bi women and masculine gay and bi men.
7. Femininity does not necessarily connote womanhood. Masculinity does not necessarily connote manhood. There are feminine, androgynous, and masculine nonbinary people.
Only decades ago, pink was marketed as a masculine color while blue was feminine.
Only about two hundred years ago, lace was androgynous.
Before the 1950s and '60s, it was the norm in literature for straight, cisgender (non-trans) men to be emotionally open and to have close, intimate, platonic, nonsexual friendships with each other. Just like it's the norm in modern literature for cishet women today.
There are still countries around the world where cishet men wear flowers and dresses, and no one thinks of them as not 'real men.'
Therefore, contemporary Western gender roles are completely arbitrary. There is no such thing as 'women's clothing' or 'men's clothing.' There is only clothing. Clothing's only gender is that of the person wearing it.
8.There are trans lesbians (women who were assigned male at birth and who are attracted, sexually, romantically, or both, to women and feminine folks) and trans gay men (men who were assigned female at birth and who are attracted to men and masculine folks).
9. Polyamory is, in fact, a traditional form of relationship. Even by Biblical standards. Seriously. Look in that thing. Your singular 'one cishet man/one cishet woman' definition of a loving relationship or marriage is ridiculous and hypocritical.
10. "I'm worried about you" is not a compliment. Concern trolling is not a compliment. Trying to 'save' us is not a compliment. Not respecting our preferred pronouns and names, in the case of trans and genderqueer people, is not a compliment.
What you're doing when you tell your queer loved one - and it's almost certain that you have one - that you "worry" for their soul is saying that the way they are isn't good enough, isn't satisfactory, is unsettling...for you. What you're doing when you email Bible verses to their Gmail or spam their Facebook account is telling them not only that you honestly believe these things will happen to them if they don't conform to your expectations, but that you think they deserve it. What you're doing is ensuring that they will almost pass out from a panic attack the first time they tentatively come out, even to someone they trust and love; that they will sometimes have dark moments in which they hate themselves and irrationally wonder if you were right the whole time; ensuring that they will self-harm; that they, like Leelah Alcorn, might walk out into the street and allow themselves to be run over because whatever happens after death has got to be better than living in a conversion therapy-, abuse- and harassment-induced hell on Earth. What you're saying is that they are disgusting, demeaning, less than human.
When you teach someone to hate themselves, it's going to have some pretty nasty effects.
Just ask Leelah.
11. 'Loving homosexuals but hating homosexuality' is still homophobia.
It doesn't matter that you just want to help.
It doesn't matter that you just want to save them.
It doesn't matter what your intent was.
What matters is what actually happens.
Now shut up, walk away, and try to empathize. Before you have their blood on your hands.
12. We know ourselves and our lived experiences better than you do. Trust what we say about our identities, because we sure as hell know more than your straight, cisgender parents and straight, cisgender pastor and everything you have ever read or heard that says we are sinful or disgusting.
10. "I'm worried about you" is not a compliment. Concern trolling is not a compliment. Trying to 'save' us is not a compliment. Not respecting our preferred pronouns and names, in the case of trans and genderqueer people, is not a compliment.
What you're doing when you tell your queer loved one - and it's almost certain that you have one - that you "worry" for their soul is saying that the way they are isn't good enough, isn't satisfactory, is unsettling...for you. What you're doing when you email Bible verses to their Gmail or spam their Facebook account is telling them not only that you honestly believe these things will happen to them if they don't conform to your expectations, but that you think they deserve it. What you're doing is ensuring that they will almost pass out from a panic attack the first time they tentatively come out, even to someone they trust and love; that they will sometimes have dark moments in which they hate themselves and irrationally wonder if you were right the whole time; ensuring that they will self-harm; that they, like Leelah Alcorn, might walk out into the street and allow themselves to be run over because whatever happens after death has got to be better than living in a conversion therapy-, abuse- and harassment-induced hell on Earth. What you're saying is that they are disgusting, demeaning, less than human.
When you teach someone to hate themselves, it's going to have some pretty nasty effects.
Just ask Leelah.
11. 'Loving homosexuals but hating homosexuality' is still homophobia.
It doesn't matter that you just want to help.
It doesn't matter that you just want to save them.
It doesn't matter what your intent was.
What matters is what actually happens.
Now shut up, walk away, and try to empathize. Before you have their blood on your hands.
12. We know ourselves and our lived experiences better than you do. Trust what we say about our identities, because we sure as hell know more than your straight, cisgender parents and straight, cisgender pastor and everything you have ever read or heard that says we are sinful or disgusting.
13. Teresa Siagatonu, Denise Frohman, Wonder Dave, Ollie Renee Schminkey, Sierra DeMulder, Wyatt Kat Fleckenstein, and Chad Michael have something to say to you.
14. So does Macklemore. (There's a line in here that's a bit amatonormative, but he has a point.)
15. And lastly, there is, in fact, a queer agenda: equality.
14. So does Macklemore. (There's a line in here that's a bit amatonormative, but he has a point.)
15. And lastly, there is, in fact, a queer agenda: equality.
6 comments:
Good post! Just wanted to point out: I could see a person attracted to the opposite binary gender and a nonbinary being bi. In fact, I had assumed that would have been their label. However, I realise now there's also a possibility they'd ID as het. My point is, maybe you should change that part? I think it puts unnecessary parameters on others people's labels.
Well, like I said, attraction can be ridiculously complicated. They might identify as bi, or polysexual, or straight, or fluid, or heteroflexible, or no label at all or maybe something I'm forgetting or haven't heard of.
A woman who is attracted only to man-aligned people is straight, for example. A straight woman might date marfluid people, demiboys, transmasculine neutrois or agender people, and binary men. The fact that she has dated and/or had sex with nonbinary male-type people doesn't make her bi. If she were to be attracted Mr to someone who isn't male-aligned, or who is also woman-aligned, she might be bi.
A woman who dated me and identified as a lesbian would still be a lesbian, even though I'm nonbinary, because I consider myself woman-aligned.
I am often perceived as a woman and am treated as one, including facing sexism. I am, about half the time, at least part woman. I relate more strongly to women, and to their culture and history, than I do that of men. I connect, emotionally speaking, with women more easily than I do with men - though I still don't fit completely into either category. I do know what it is to be a man, because I'm also that, but even when I'm male I'm never really JUST male, only close to it - and when I'm female, I /am/ sometimes exclusively female. I wouldn't feel comfortable living as a man, but I also don't feel comfortable living as a binary cis woman. And even when I AM male, I still face some sexism (and, of course, transphobia) because I am still, politically and socially, classed as a woman. Calling me a woman is not inaccurate, it's just incomplete.
For those reasons, I consider myself both woman-aligned and nonbinary. I wouldn't feel misgendered if I were to date a lesbian. Lesbians who are attracted to me are still lesbians, and straight men who are attracted to me are still straight. Neither a straight man nor a lesbian would be bi if they were attracted to me, but a gay-identified man or a straight-identified woman might be. Does that make sense, anon?
A friend of mine is a demigirl whose boyfriend is a straight cis guy. He's not bi for being attracted to a nonbinary person, because she is still woman-aligned.
Agreed. I actually know a guy who identifies as bi for that reason.
Agreed. I actually know a guy who identifies as bi for that reason.
Post a Comment