attraction regardless of gender doesn’t preclude having preferences

“regardless of gender” to some can indicate attraction that isn’t affected by gender in any capacity whatsoever. they might not have any differing feelings or preferences regarding gender at all. some people might use this definition to express neutral or equal feelings about gender across the board.

but “regardless of gender” is also often a way of expressing “not determined by gender”, which indicates attraction that isn’t based on gender. some people might use this definition to express that gender can affect their attraction to someone, but it isn’t a defining aspect of their attraction itself.

personally, i first identified as pan because of the “regardless of gender” definition. to me, it represented the *vague gestures, shrugging* feeling i got whenever asked specifically what genders i’m attracted to. i never thought of attraction in terms of gender, so i didn’t relate to defining it that way.

but i also don’t relate to feeling about every gender the same way or in equal amounts or not leaning more towards one gender over others. which is why i prefer “not determined by gender”. to me, that wording expresses a nuance that’s important to the way i feel about and experience attraction. but sometimes i just use “regardless of gender” because it’s easier and a more known definition.

idk if any of that made sense, because even now it’s still hard to articulate the specific feelings i have about sexuality in relation to gender beyond *vague gestures, shrugging* lmao, but regardless if it makes sense to anyone else, it makes sense to me and the nuance here is important to me, and i’m not any less pan because of it, and that needs to be respected.

so please stop making sweeping statements about how pan people who step so much as a toe out of the tiny box you’re trying to force pan into in attempt to differentiate it further from other mspec identities aren’t really pan.

stop erasing pan people’s individual experiences and gatekeeping them from their own identity and community.

if you have a problem with any of the fictional pairings that i enjoy on the internet, for the low cost of $9,000 you can pay me to care about what you think

This is a recurring monthly fee also. Not a one time thing.

“Sex Should Have Consequences in Fiction” Counterpoint: No The Fuck It Shouldn’t

Okay, so I’ve seen this argument a lot recently, and to a degree, I understand where it’s coming from. Not every teenager is going to be having sex, therefore teenage characters in YA fiction who have sex are not going to be relatable to every teenager. Birth control in fantasy that boils down to a simple spell or a magic potion can feel a little silly. Very serious grimdark fantasy that acknowledges that sexually transmitted diseases exist and yet the very handsome lead who manwhores his way across the continent never worries about getting one is… tiring.

But sex does not have to have consequences.

We, as a modern society, have birth control. We have condoms, we have pills, we have plenty of safe ways to engage in sexual behavior safely without contracting an STD. Humanity historically has always used methods of birth control and tried to control sexual diseases, however impractical those methods may have been at times. The ancient Romans may have wiped out a plant used as herbal birth control, and I promise you plenty of older societies did the same. Having birth control and safe sex be in a fantasy or science fiction is both reasonable, natural, and normal.

So why this push for ‘sexual consequences’ in fiction? Why did I have to see with my two eyes that certain fantasy fiction is bad because the female lead has an easy birth control solution, or one fantasy race is “superior” because they don’t have sex outside of marriage?

First of all… it’s propaganda. I’m sorry, y’all, but ‘sex has consequences’ is a weapon used to blame women for situations out of their control. It’s used against LGBTQ people, it’s used against people who contract HIV and other serious STDs. It is used to excuse, to undermine, and to ignore victims of rape and sexual assault. It’s not an attitude that needs to be perpetuated in fiction or fandom.

However. However! I understand not wanting to have sex in your reading or fandom experience. I understand how frustrating it can be to try to curate a comfortable online experience only to encounter, some porn you didn’t want to see, a sex scene you don’t want to read, or to feel pressured to make sexual content when you don’t want to. I know this sucks! And it should not happen, and anyone who is reasonable will agree with you.

The internet needs to be better at tagging and hash-tagging, more books should have content warnings, and no one who wants you to write sexual content you’re not comfortable with is your friend, seriously, drop those assholes from your life. We can acknowledge that not everyone has to have sex, not every sexual behavior is healthy, and to advocate for consent without pushing dangerous ideas that punish people for being sexual beings. We can, as a community, work toward creative sex-positive and sex-free spaces that accommodate everyone if we are willing to put in the work.

Didn’t we learn this with Buffy? Like, Whedon sit your ass down. It’s OK for teenagers to have sex and the world will not end (or vamps turn into crazy) when they do. And, equally, women should not be punished exclusively for sexual acts.

We all hate Whedon in this house, you are valid.

10000000000000000000000000%.

“What are you?” “Where are you from?” “No, I mean where are your parents from?” “I mean what’s your ethnicity?”

Well, you could’ve just asked that in the first place.

✨ if someone being a panphobe isn’t a deal breaker for you, you’re a panphobe, too ✨

“But isn’t having sex with people that you’re not in love with cruel and manipulative?”

Translation: I love recycling SWERF rhetoric in order to shit on aromantic people.

Fact: Your partner should never hold your orientation against you, expect you to stay closeted for them or claim to be gay or lesbian instead of bisexual, isolate you from LGBTQIAP+ friends or community, treat you as less trustworthy because of your orientation, or threaten to out you. These are all examples of biphobia and can be signs of an abusive relationship.

Sometimes you’re in a position where you need or want to “play nice” and be “friendly” to someone who has hurt you. This does not invalidate your feelings or mean that you’re saying what they’ve done is okay.

“So you think that a woman being with a man is good bi representation?”

Translation: I’ve apparently forgotten what bisexuality means.

anyway misorienting + misgendering lgbtqia+ people because they ship a pairing you don’t like isn’t okay.

i get that it’s a lot easier for some of y'all to make arguments against ships you hate if you pretend everyone who ships it is “cishet” but there is not a single popular pairing that exists where the majority of the fanbase is entirely devoid of lgbtqia+ people, particularly when we’re talking about fandoms on tumblr where there is a large lgbtqia+ demographic. talking over lgbtqia+ people, stuffing your fingers in your ears, and going “lalala can’t hear these nasty cishets” and willfully denying their orientation and gender identities is an entirely shitty thing to do.

and no, it’s not okay if you’re lgbtqia+ yourself.

and no, it doesn’t matter how “nasty” you think the ship is.

if you can’t make an argument without denying a person’s identity then your argument wasn’t good to begin with.

everybody just latched onto “terf = enemy” and then never again put any thought into why that is, and what transmisogyny is, so they just make a big deal out of being an anti-terf instead of understanding the problem in the first place

Some stuff to know:

TERF - Trans Excluding/Erasing Radical Feminist:

Someone who believes that trans women are not women and don’t belong in women’s spaces. They believe that trans women are predatory cis men pretending to be women in order to have sex with lesbians.

SWERF - Sex Worker Excluding/Erasing Radical Feminist:

Someone who believes that sex workers (those who make money from pornography or prostitution) are not feminist / not valuable / should not be welcome in feminist / women’s spaces. They believe that women participating in pornography or prostitution are upholding patriarchy and damaging the feminist movement.

Truscum aka transmedicalists:

Someone who believes that you must experience body dysphoria in order to be trans. They also tend to be attached to the gender binary and erase or exclude anyone who does not conform to a male / female gender identity (genderfluid, non-binary, agender, bi-gender, etc)

Ace exclusionists:

Someone who believes that ace-spectrum people are not inherently LGBTQ+ and do not belong in LGBTQ+ spaces. They see ace people as secretly cis/straight invaders and leeches to LGBTQ+ programs and resources. They also tend to believe that the definition of LGBTQ+ centres around those who experience discrimination for same-sex attraction, and therefore ace folk do not belong.

Trans women are women. Non-medical trnas people are trans. Ace people are LGBTQIA+.

Know why we do not welcome these people.

i find so many ‘callouts’ about how people headcanon fictional characters to be extremely suspect tbh

what i’m talking about is this: people getting called out for headcanoning certain characters as being autistic are mostly autistic themselves, people getting called out for headcanoning characters of color as being a-spec are mostly a-spec poc, people getting called out for headcanoning certain characters as being mentally ill are mostly mentally ill people, people getting called out for headcanoning certain characters as being abuse survivors are also abuse survivors, etc etc etc

i swear that 90% of the time i see people going off over “headcanoning this character as being ___ is Problematic!” it’s people who are also ___ who are making those headcanons and getting the brunt of the anger about it and meanwhile it’s mostly people who are NOT ___ who are making the callouts against them, and the reasoning the people doing the calling out use for why these headcanons are “problematic” almost always comes down to either bigotry, gatekeeping, or respectability politics.

but like…people who are part of marginalized groups, who are mentally ill or neurodivergent, who are abuse survivors, who are whatever—people are allowed to headcanon characters as being like them. people are allowed to see parts of themselves and their lives in fictional characters. that imo is not “problematic” but telling them that they can’t, that they’re wrong, that seeing a piece of their identity or background in a character makes THEM bad is.

I’m not particularly active on this blog right now due to reasons, but I think it’s important to highlight this.

I need everyone to understand that this is and was always the goal. Banning access to trans healthcare for minors was always the first step towards banning access to trans healthcare entirely. The focus on trans minors has been purely to drum up outrage (“won’t someone think of the children”) and to popularize the bans.

The Overton window has been shifted, so to speak. Less conservative individuals might be uncomfortable with the idea of outright banning adults from choosing what happens to their own bodies and making their own medical decisions…but if it’s banned for 17 year olds, is it safe for 18 year olds? 19? 20? 25? 30? Anyone?

I need everyone to understand that trans healthcare rights are inherently an issue of bodily autonomy, and that Christian conservatism is deeply opposed to the concept of bodily autonomy. Banning trans youth from accessing gender affirming health care is to trans rights as the 20 or 15 or 6 week abortion ban is to abortion rights–the goal is to ultimately erase the legal right to bodily autonomy.

I need everyone to see the connection between transphobia and ableism. I definitely need everyone to stop perpetuating the concept of mental age. This includes repeating the incorrect and neuronormative line that “brains aren’t fully developed until age 25” or suggesting that autistic or otherwise neurodivergent people aren’t capable of understanding and making our own decisions. An adult is an adult regardless of neurotype, regardless of neurological development.

I especially need everyone to be worried about the implications of banning 18-25 year olds from having full control over their own medical decisions. How else might that eventually be weaponized? Especially in regards to reproductive rights?

I’ve believed for years that banning the ability to medically, legally, and socially transition entirely would become a popular Christian conservative goal, and possibly a reality. Not only to enforce their religious beliefs around assigned sex upon us legally–but because trans people who need and are able to transition have better mental health and are more likely to live happier longer lives. And they don’t want us to live.

the prevalence of stories in which a “happy ending” means marriage and children is definitely an issue, which traces back to heteronormative expectations and outdated boomer notions of success – that being said, it doesn’t mean that a happy ending involving marriage and children is inherently bad, nor that there isn’t a place for those kinds of stories in modern fiction. children are often a shorthand representation of the main characters leaving out a legacy and, in stories about wars and similar atrocities, of new life coming forth after a long period of death and metaphorical barreness. depending on the themes and motifs of your story, having your main character become a parent as part of the happy resolution can be absolutely fitting and I wish some people here weren’t so against it on principle.       

this is specially relevant for characters of color because, even if the story itself never touches upon issues of race, the mere choice of showing families of color thriving and growing in fiction is an uplifting and revolutionary act in and of itself when there are entire hate groups irl dedicated to the cause of wiping out ethnic populations altogether. just because you are personally tired of seeing white characters end up in nice traditional marriages with 2.5 children doesn’t mean that the entire concept has become obsolete all of a sudden.

All the talk about "oh Elon Musk's buying twitter now all the people who fled from tumblr to twitter are gonna come back here" and gotta say. I'm on edge. SOMETHING happened to tumblr between 2018 and 2020 that turned it from a warzone to a tolerable shitposting website and my one best guess has always been that the p/orn ban sent so many people packing to twitter that we ended up exporting all our native-grown gremlins to the bird site. I back this theory up by the fact that all batshit fandom drama I hear about these days comes from twitter.

So for most people coming back, happy to see you welcome have some tea or coffee over on the table to the left but if the shit-stirrers come back for me it's on sight. It's on sight. First time around I was nice I was like "oh I shouldn't engage if I'm the Bigger Blog that's a bad move to put smaller blogs on blast :(" free pass is up. I'll name and shame. I clawed my way back up from 6 feet underground and I'm not doing it again I'll defend this garbage tower to the death. PVP. I'll salt the earth I'll poison the water supply I'll burn the village down hand in unlovable hand I'll take everyone and everything down with me before I cede this stupid blog again it's on. sight.

Oh also there's some lemon bars too.