(((I Will Outlive)))

Here is a complete list of the people who can decide if someone is LGBTQ+:

1. The person themselves

Let's stop gendering autism.

Slapping a gender onto specific autistic traits can cause a lot of problems for everyone. Some autistic people have struggled to get a diagnosis because they don't exhibit the autistic traits commonly associated with their gender.

“Part of presuming my competence includes presuming I know my own gender. I am trans. If you do not believe me, you are saying I am incapable of knowing myself well enough to know my own gender, something inherently personal.“ 

you guys want more weird and complex queer people but a trans man will say he used to be a woman and everyone will explode

that was my experience and that is how i’ll describe it. stop politicizing personal identities and stop trying to get them to fit YOUR model of what a good tranny looks like.

— Kate Bornstein on the word "tranny" in this oral history from the Digital Transgender Archive

(Image description: a genderqueer pride flag and three queer pride flags with the words “queer people are allowed to exist and be visible” centered in white and black text.)

Anyway, here is your regular reminder that the term genderqueer was coined in the 90s; the creation of the term is generally credited to trans activist, author, and academic Riki Anne Wilchins. The label was very popular in queer and trans zines at the time.

Genderqueer identity and culture existed well before this hellsite did and will continue to exist long after tumblr has gone down in flames.

We’re here, we’re genderqueers, and we won’t be erased.

“It’s about all of us who are genderqueer: diesel dykes and stone butches, leatherqueens and radical fairies, nelly fags, crossdressers, intersexed, transsexuals, transvestites, transgendered, transgressively gendered, and those of us whose gender expressions are so complex they haven’t even been named yet.” - Riki Anne Wilchins (source: here)

We all talk about how other people shouldn’t have to explain their “weird” triggers and we should be willing to tag them until something like this happens. How hard is it to ask if the anon is asking bc they find it “gross”/feel uncomfortable with it, or bc it’s a legit trigger?

One example would be if anon is gay and was assaulted for gay pda and feels fear for the couple and/or has flashbacks when they see pics of gay pda. How do you think this response and all the notes it’s gotten would make them feel?

Odds are that that’s not why the ask was sent, and that it’s bc the anon is homophobic, which isn’t a good reason to tag gay pda, but is it that hard to be thoughtful enough to consider other possibilities and ask in case your initial assumption is wrong?

Well, for one, people can personally curate their own tumblr feed and if they don’t want to see PDA, and a blog posts PDA, they can just unfollow it.

And see, here’s the issue. People only ever ask for GAY PDA to be tagged. If someone is legitimately triggered by PDA, they should request that PDA be tagged, not specifically gay PDA. Asking for gay PDA to be tagged is no different from asking someone to trigger tag gay people. The emphasis is on it being gay, not being PDA, so there’s always an ulterior motive.

Marginalized people are not a valid trigger, and if someone is triggered by the existence of an oppressed group, they need to get over themself.

mogais keep inventing bullshit homophobic and/or just plain fucking useless terms like “queerphobia” and “homonormativity” when the only similar term i can think of that might actually be useful would be some fuckshit like “queernormativity” since yall love to call every lgbt person “queer” without our consent

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t bother reblogging a post like this, especially not to this blog. But this post is a perfect example of a major problem that exists on Tumblr. In short, history is being ignored, erased, and rewritten with every new discourse flavor of the week.

The term homonormativity has existed since the 90s. It’s creation is credited to the trans community. In specific, the term is credited to Susan Stryker: a transgender woman and professor of Women’s, Gender, and LGBT Studies.

This is a screengrab from The Sage Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies. But a simple search will show that Stryker has written much on homonormativity and trans history.

The history of the usage of queerphobia has been less easy to track down, but a few pages suggest that its been in use since the 90s as well.

Given the push for the reclaimation of queer during the 90s and the growth of queer theory around the same time, that would be entirely logical. In addition, searches on Google books for “queer-phobic” and “queerphobia” turn up related hits dating back to the late 90s.

But I’m short on time right now. I do intend to keep looking for additional sources on this. And if anyone has any I would be grateful to you for sending them my way.

However, my point is this: even if the term queerphobia had originated on Tumblr, and it did not, it has since spread beyond into wider community and academic usage. Queerphobia has been mentioned in everything from blog posts to academic journals since the mid 2000s at least.

If the existence of the term queerphobia did not benefit or add to discussions of queer oppression, would we use it? Obviously the term has a place and a usage.

I find it interesting and telling that an exclusionist would go out of their way to lie about the origins of terms like homonormativity, so much so as to deny credit to the trans woman who coined it.

And I believe I know why: Homonormativity is a term that helps us to discuss assimilation and respectability politics within the LGBTQ+ communities. Exclusionary discourse on this website has been pro-assimilation since day one.

In any case, the tl:dr is this:

1) Be very careful what you accept as true, because lies intended to push a specific narrative are posted on this website everyday.

2) Learn queer history. When we know our pasts, it will be that much more difficult for people with less than honorable intentions to manipulate us.

3) Just because you’ve never heard something before doesn’t mean it is a new word or concept. *especially* if it sounds like academic or activist jargon it has likely been in use for awhile and you should look it up before brushing it off. (I mean, and the wider: don’t brush things off just because they are new to you thing…)

Finally, an informational post on genderqueer identity!

(Image description: ten square images with blue, white, and lavender gradient backgrounds; every image has a border across the top and bottom with a thin black line framed by a black diamond on each side and every image also has black text.

1) Large centered text that reads “A Brief Introduction to Genderqueer History and Identity”, below that is the instagram handle “@genderqueer.positivity”

2) “Genderqueer is a term that was created in the mid-1990’s to cover a wide range of Queer experiences of gender, as well as marginalized gender identities and expressions. In its earliest usage, "gender queer” was a term for those who were Queer specifically because of gender, rather than sexuality.“

3) "The earliest usage of "gender queer” comes from the April/May first edition of the zine GenderTrash From Hell, edited by Xanthra Phillippa Mackay.“ Below this is a quote from page 19 of the zine reading "gender queers & gender outlaws are what we & only we are, since lesbians & gays seem to think that queer means lesbian/gay (& sometimes bi) only”.

4) “The terms "gender queer” and “gender trash” would appear in another set of zines two years later, the In Your Face newsletters published by Riki Anne Wilchins. It’s unclear if Wilchins drew inspiration from the GenderTrash zines, or if she created these terms independently; however, she claims to have coined the term “genderqueer” and she is the one most commonly credited with creating and defining the term.“

5) A quote that reads "I coined the term “genderqueer” back in the 1990s in an effort to glue together two nouns that seemed to me described an excluded and overlooked middle: those of us who were not only queer but were so because we were the kind of gender trash society couldn’t digest.” Smaller text below attributes the quote to Riki Wilchins, from an advocate.com article titled “Get to Know the New Pronouns: They, Theirs, and Them”

6) A second quote that reads “It’s about all of us who are genderqueer: diesel dykes and stone butches, leatherqueens and radical fairies, nelly fags, crossdressers, intersexed, transexuals, transvestites, transgendered, transgressively gendered, intersexed, and those of us whose gender expressions are so complex they haven’t even been named yet.” This quote is also attributed to Riki Wilchins and comes from the first edition of a gender activism newsletter called In Your Face, published in Spring 1995.

7) “Today, Genderqueer is both an umbrella term and a specific gender identity label. As an umbrella term, Genderqueer still covers a wide range of Queer experiences of gender. As the basis for a gender identity, Genderqueer can be used as a label by any person who feels that their gender is best described as Queer, or anyone who actively chooses to Queer their own gender identity and/or expression.”

8) “Genderqueer is used by some individuals to describe having a gender identity outside of the male/female binary. However, it is also possible to have a binary or binary-aligned gender and be Genderqueer. Genderqueer can be used as a stand-alone label or as one of multiple gender-related labels used by an individual.”

9) This slide has text along the bottom that says “This is the Genderqueer pride flag; this version was created by Marilyn Roxie in 2011.” Above that is a square image of a Genderqueer pride flag on the left side; the flag has three stripes of the same width: a lavender stripe on top, a white stripe in the center, and a chartreuse green stripe on the bottom. To the right of the flag is text which describes what each color represents. Lavender represents “queerness and androgyny”, white represents “gender neutrality and genderlessness”, and green represents “genders unrelated to the binary”.

10) The last slide has a stock photo in the top/center of the image; in the stock photo a person stands on a staircase with beige walls and a white ceiling in the background, holding a large genderqueer pride flag up to a natural light source which isn’t visible in the picture, the person wears khaki pants, but otherwise can’t be seen from behind the flag. Below the stock photo is text that reads “Genderqueerness is radically inclusive, deeply personal, fiercely political, and beautiful.” After the sentence is the outline of a black heart emoji.)

tbh the fact that so many people shut down aces who talk about their experiences by crying “IT WAS REALLY MISOGYNY!” bugs me bc like. 

There’s another layer to this that we need to talk about:

It is common for issues to intersect, and to assume otherwise oversimplifies the negative impact of misogyny. Misogyny takes on different forms based on who it is targeting, and asexual women have unique experiences with misogyny.

Misogyny is not a hatred of women in isolation of other aspects of their identities. It is a hatred of women, including the identities they align themselves with. It can never be about just hating women, because women are never just one thing.

To assume that asexual women cannot experience misogyny simultaneously with anti-asexual hatred and violence, means to perpetuate a system that does not want women to have bodily autonomy and agency over their identity.

Asexuality as defined by asexual people does not align with the stereotypes historically given to women regarding sexuality, but the idea that all asexuals are women stem from misogynistic views of womanhood and sexuality.

Likewise, the idea that men are incapable of being asexual stems from misogyny because historically the sexual appetites of men were considered natural as well as uncontrollable to the point where it is/was a woman’s job to protect herself.

Before arguments over the belonging of asexual people in LGBT+ spaces dominated the internet, much of the discussions re: the validity of asexuality revolved around the perceived progressiveness of the identity to women.

Asexuality, for a time, was “anti-feminist.” This was especially common in literature by/for radical feminists who also tend towards the exclusion of trans and non-binary people in feminist spaces.

This all stems from misogyny, because it puts asexual women at fault for the historical treatment of women and the denial of their agency over their sexuality. Ironically, this denied many asexual women agency over their asexuality.

Misogyny cannot be examined nor challenged without considering the insidious forms it takes within marginalized communities. We also can’t address misogyny by assuming what works for cisgender straight women works for all.

You can’t break down the barriers misogyny creates without intersectionality.

"I was fine with the LGBT community existing, but I draw the line at forcing their lifestyle on children."

Translating:

"I was fine with the LGBT community trying to heal LGBT adults who we traumatized when they were children, but I draw the line at preventing us from traumatizing them in the first place."

Exclusionist tumblr has adopted this trend of trying to treat lesser known terms and identities as newfangled–and therefore “mogai”–on purpose. It is an attempt to deny us our place in the community and to deny us our history.

Queer has been widely reclaimed for decades.

Genderqueer has existed since the early 90s. And so have the terms polygendered and polysexual.

Bigender has been in usage since the late 90s, at least.

Genderfuck has been in usage since the 70s.

Asexuality has existed as an identity since the early 70s.

One of the earliest usages of the word androgyne as a specific identity comes from 1895.

Neutrois was created in 1995.

Non-gendered has been in usage since at least 2000.

Intergender was coined in the 90s. At the time, intergender was NOT an intersex specific gender identity, but was for anyone “between” man and woman.

Do your own reseach and don’t believe the nonsense being pushed by discourse blogs.

Links to START out with. Yes, a lot of them are Wikipedia. Scroll down. Follow the citations and read the source material.

Don’t be afraid to just start googling. “Term + year created” or “history of term” are good ways to start.

List of nonbinary identities.

History of nonbinary identities:

Timeline of asexual history:

Asexuality in 1973:

A page from a zine in 1995, selling pride and identity buttons, including those for polysexual and polygendered people:

Some history of intersex inclusion in the LGBTQ community:

Genderqueer history:

Early intergender history:

So, just curious how many writers and creators will have to be forcibly outed by relentless harassment before we acknowledge that "This queer characters was written by a cishet person and that's why they're bad" is not good criticism.

Also I cannot overstate how much "We should scrutinize out queer authors MORE" was not the point of this post, or my tags on it. Queer creators already cannot fucking win. If they're not out loud and clear, they get ripped to pieces. If they're out and proud and make art that doesn't rise to the impossible standard of perfectly representing all queer people everywhere they get ripped to pieces.

There isn't a way forward from this without being willing to admit that what is good representation is subjective. There isn't a way forward from this without admitting that we aren't all looking for the same thing in queer media and queer characters, that something not being for me doesn't make it necessarily bad and harmful, and that what we need is more and a greater variety of queer characters, not to force them all into one arbitrary formula.

Less than a day after I posted this, the notes were already filling up with testimonials from creators afraid to represent themselves in their own work because they are aware of the unforgiving scrutiny applied to all marginalized characters and they know their characters will be seen as imperfect representation.

You have to realize that the rigid view of what constitutes "good representation" is not just hurting the privileged creators you deem acceptable targets. It is hurting marginalized creators who want to represent themselves and share their stories in their voices.

Harper-Hugo Darling (via makingqueerhistory)

How you personally interpret your feelings and identity matter more than getting things exactly right. If there even is an actual "right".