mouthporn.net
#queer terminology – @aph-japan on Tumblr

(((I Will Outlive)))

@aph-japan / aph-japan.tumblr.com

Chai * (*"Kari" in DigiAdvs & 02 fandom; close friends may use another particular name). THEY/THEM. {JEWISH} + AUTISTIC&G.A.D + Disabled ABOUT + FAQ. (READ BEFORE Interacting extensively/directly on my posts) DIGIMON (ADVENTURE/02/Tri/Kizuna/2020/"02 Movie"). Cardcaptor Sakura/TRC/CLAMP. Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon (+ Crystal). Yu-Gi-Oh (DM.) Pokemon (anime/games/rgby/gsc+hgss/rse+oras/ Zelda. Kagepro/Vocaloid. Utapri. Kingdom Hearts. Professor Layton. K [Project]. Madoka Magica. Miraculous Ladybug/PV. +more! READ MY RULES & FAQ BEFORE INTERACTING ship list / permissions / other/past blogs * This blog's (and all of my other blogs') r18+ (or r18+ implied) content is now tagged #r18! However, please note it is infrequent on all of my blogs! *
Avatar
Avatar
prokopetz

My take on the walrus knocking on your door versus a fairy knocking on your door thing is that I don't believe in magic or fairies whatsoever and I'd still be more surprised by the walrus. A fairy knocking on my door means I've made one bad assumption about how the world works; a walrus knocking on my door – in Saskatchewan, in February – means I'm wrong about a great many things.

As an aside, I feel like a lot of the folks on the "anyone who wouldn't find the fairy more surprising is a superstitious moron" side of the argument are operating under – or, at least, have chosen to adopt – a very particular set of assumptions about what a "fairy" in order to justify that position. "The fairy is obviously more surprising because its existence would oblige us to rewrite all of biology and physics" no, it absolutely would not. A fairy on my doorstep is one data point, my guy. Upending one's entire understanding of the universe on the basis of a single isolated observation is not how we do things. Walruses, on the other hand? We know how walruses work, and this isn't it!

Avatar
vaspider

Look.

I'm a middle-aged trans queer.

There's a fairy on my doorstep multiple times a day, minimum.

It's not my fault the poll didn't specify.

Avatar

btw if you go up to an aylonit/saris/androgynos/tumtum who doesn't identify exclusively as a man or a woman and you tell them "you have to be either male or female" not only are you being enbyphobic and intersexist, you are also being very antisemitic. trying to strip jews of their cultural identities and practices to use loaded "scientific" language to describe their bodies is textbook antisemitism taken straight from early 20th century eugenicists. an aylonit/saris/androgynos/tumtum is the category that they say they are, and calling them anything else in regards to their sex and/or gender unless they say you can call them that is shitty. they do not owe you information about their chromosomes, genitals, and reproductive organs so you can push them and their bodies into western colonial categories. more broadly, intersex people (but especially jewish and non-white intersex people) don't owe you conformity to the western understanding of male and female.

Avatar
reblogged

Correct me if I am wrong, but years ago I collected a list of neopronouns by year of coining (only before 2000 otherwise things would get a bit out of hand very quickly). I wanted to share this list with you all!

History of English Neopronouns:

• Ou (1789)

• Ne/Nim/Nis/Nis/Nimself (1850)

• Ve/Vim/Vis/Vis/Vimself (1864)

• Ze (1864)

• Thon/Thon/Thons/Thons/Thonself (1884)

• E/Em/Es/Es/Emself (1890)

• He’er/Him’er/His’er/His’er/Him’erself (1912)

• Hir (1920)

• Ae/Aer/Aer/Aers/Aerself (1920)

• Tey/Tem/Ter/Ters/Temself (1971)

• Xe/Xem/Xyr/Xyrs/Xemself (1973)

• Te/Tir/Tes/Tes/Tirself (1974)

• Ey/Em/Eir/Eirs/Eirself (1975)

• Per/Per/Pers/Pers/Perself (1979)

• Ve/Ver/Vis/Vis/Verself (1980)

• Hu/Hum/Hus/Hus/Humself (1982)

• E/Em/Eir/Eirs/Emself (1983)

• Ze/Hir/Hir/Hirs/Hirself (1996)

• Ze/Mer/Zer/Zers/Zemself (1997)

• Zhe/Zhim/Zher/Zhers/Zhimself (2000)

Sources:

(I am aware that not all of these are the peak of credibility, so please let me know if any of them are incorrect.)

Avatar
Avatar
elalmadelmar

One of the things that’s started troubling me more and more about discourse online, and particularly queer discourse (since that’s what I’m most embedded in) is how restrictive we get about acceptable/unacceptable terms. 

This is something that can and does hurt people within the community. I think it can be a little invisible to those within the online community that our terms, our way of talking about these terms, and the terms we define as outdated or inaccurate, can change very, very quickly. Online discussions, and especially decentralized online discussions like tumblr or twitter that rely on spreading a post through a network of connected individuals rather than a centralized discussion space – these don’t reach everyone at the same time. 

Why is this bothering me?  I recently wound up in a discussion about older trans folks who use the term ‘transsexual’ to describe themselves. 

Now, ‘transsexual’ is a depreciated term. It’s not current.  Someone who uses it is probably going to get a side-eye from any queer folks within earshot.  But it’s also an identity term for people who have fought long and hard for their identities. And those people are still here, still with us. Who are we, younger and more online, surrounded by our communities, to tell older trans folks, the ones who didn’t have the internet to answer their questions and connect them with others, who had to risk it all to visit each other in person or forge their way in painful solitude for years or decades, what they can and cannot call themselves? 

I think it’s good that there is online discussion.  I think it’s great that we can continue to refine our language and the way we think about our identity and our community. Adding to the language we have to define ourselves is no bad thing.  

My plea, instead, is that we not subtract from that language. If someone feels that ‘transsexual’ is the term that best describes them, let them have it! If a trans woman feels that “MTF” is the term that most accurately describes her life journey, who am I to crawl up her ass with a lecture about how that language invalidates people who feel they never were their AGAB and don’t have a ‘to’ of any kind?  It’s not about them! She’s talking about herself, and telling her that her own self-chosen term is outdated or even transphobic (!!!!) is bullshit of the highest order. 

The weakness of progressivism is the tendency to turn on each other, and to spend so much time fighting amongst each other over minor details that we lose sight of our goals that, ultimately, align. Fighting over the precise connotations of different terms blinds us to the fight for genuine freedom to be ourselves. 

Terms for the broad community are likewise never going to sit exactly right with the entire community. Some terms are going to be better than others, of course, and get wider acceptance – but there’s no universally accepted, universally identified-with language. We do the best with what we have, and it’s important to remember that not everyone has access to the exact same information – the same tumblr posts, the same twitter feeds, the same subreddits, the same Facebook groups – that you might have seen. And that does not make people who haven’t seen those exact same posts/discussions/etc ignorant, misinformed, or malicious.

We do the best with what we have. Language is an imperfect tool, and all the more imperfect for its uneven transmission. If a person says “transman” when you feel they should be saying “trans man” – does correcting them further the movement? Does attacking them strengthen our resistance against the legions of people who want to see us crushed down and forced to conform to the M or F slapped on our birth certificates? 

Accept that there is a broad, diverse range of ways to talk about our experiences, our identities, and our struggles. There is no one right way to be trans, no universal lesbian experience, no single bi or pan definition that covers everyone precisely. There is no official measure of gay. 

The language we use matters. But our solidarity matters more. Choose the battles that will advance our freedom, rather than tearing down your siblings in arms.

Avatar

The QPR History Discourse: where we are.

An update on the situation: (because I know all of you are glued to your seats about this one 🙄)

It looks like we may have to pack it up, lads. I’m currently having discussions with a (frankly terrifyingly) influential ace blogger and it seems the people who created the label QPR strongly object to the perspective that they (as Ace bloggers who happened to be aro-spec) could, in any way, represent the aro community. So I will probably be officially retracting my previous statements that QPRs are aro history.

Where that leaves the aro community in relationship to QPRs, I don’t know. I’m honestly shocked that the weight of this should fall at my doorstep at all. If any other aro blogs want to chime in, feel free. But as of now, QPRs are ace history, not aro history.

It seems to me, though I may be about to drop a Bad Take, that whether the term was originally created for aro people is immaterial if aro people use it now. Is it a useful concept? Yes. Can aro people find meaning and identity in it? Also yes.

Does using it in an aromantic way in any way hurt the asexual usage? Idk. I don’t follow The Discourse well enough to answer that question. But my guess is gonna be that it doesn’t hurt anything for an even more marginalized group than asexuals to use a term made by arospec asexuals to describe their relationships. Even if that wasn’t the original purpose.

Basically, QPR will have to be pried from my cold, dead fingers before I give it up. If allos can use it so can I.

So uh. Maybe it wasn’t aro history at first but if aros are using it now, it is now aro history. Because we’re making history all the time.

If ppl think this is a bad take, I’m sure I’ll hear about it.

Avatar
godlessace

That’s what I’ve been saying all along.  The idea of a QPR originated in a community that I was personally involved in, but it was explicitly acknowledged from the outset that it was open to everyone, and it’s great to see it used extensively in aro spaces.

What’s not great is to see people get the history wrong, and for what?  It’s not like a word needs to originate in the aro community in order for it to be part of aro history.

Dude, the objection is coming from two places. One, when we were having those discussions, the aro community as a thing outside the asexual community did not fucking exist. It is gross to see the conversations within my specific community appropriated away from its context, and having it labeled aggressively as not belonging to the specific community context that all of us would have described it as coming from at the time. This is maybe the fifth or sixth time I’ve had to make this point. Where is your community continuity? Why does this keep coming up over and over and over again? How is your community explaining its own history such that this piece of knowledge annoys someone and gets “rediscovered” every two years? 

Two, when we were having those conversations, there was a slow split as folks dropped off the radar of what the nascent aro community became: there seems to have been a quieter contingent of folks who went “hang on, are romantic relationships even a Real Thing?” and slipped off to question whether romantic orientation was even a universally useful question to identify (see here me*, @aceadmiral​, @kazaera​) and another set who went off to construct identities around not experiencing conventional romantic attraction. I am part of that former group, and the thoughts I have had about romantic relationships both then and now have honestly erred in the direction of deciding that romantic relationships are not, in the end, much different from any other kind of relationship, and encouraging people to consider ways in which our cultural categories of relationship are artificial boundaries imposed on a wide variety of human connections and attachments. 

I have never felt much kinship with the discussions that aro groups are having because the reification of romantic relationships as a quintessentially different category of relationship from other forms of attachment weirds me out. So it is doubly annoying to me to see myself seized as a figurehead for a community that is based on a concept that I think is way too heavily shaped by modern cultural assumptions about how chosen family and other relationships should form, begin, and feel. 

All of that being said, none of that has any bearing on my opinions about who should and should not feel welcome to use the concept of QPRs, which is (and has always been) that anyone who thinks the concept is useful should pick it up and have at. I don’t believe anyone involved in those conversations has ever said otherwise, even if the history thing is a pervasive irritation. Go forth, muddy the waters between those artificial categories of what you can do with any given relationship, and love one another with my blessing–not, frankly, that you need it. It belongs to you. It’s belongs to everyone. Just don’t tell me who I belong to, dammit. 

*sciatrix

Avatar
kazaera

Yeah, hi! I’m one of the co-originators of the term (s.e. smith was the one who came up with it, but it was on my blog in a conversation with me, and Sci above was another participant who was heavily involved in spreading it afterwards). I dropped out of ace discourse in 2011 and discovered this issue fairly recently.

I also want to underline that I absolutely do not want to take queerplatonic away from anyone. Like, something I said in the original convo was that I wished someone had had these conversations before us so that I wouldn’t need to go through them myself, and that I hoped the work we were doing now could be useful for others later. From the looks of it, this succeeded beyond my wildest dreams, which is fantastic! Anytime I see someone use the word “queerplatonic” my heart grows a little larger. Please, if you want it - go forth and use it! As Sci said, you have my blessing, not that you need it.

What annoys me is the historical revisionism involved in claiming the term as originating in the aro community. Like Sci says, there was no aro community at the time, at least not one I or anyone involved knew about. The participants were ace bloggers for the most part, participating in an ace community discussion. And, again like Sci says (it is possible this entire reblog could be replaced by “like Sci says”…) a bunch of us reacted to this discussion by essentially rejecting the notion of romantic orientation.

It is… weird, and not exactly pleasant, to find oneself suddenly retroactively co-opted into a community one has never been part of (I’m sure y’all are lovely people, but as mentioned above I dropped out of this sort of discourse back in 2011), to the point of having the community you were part of at the time erased and your identity redefined - I don’t and didn’t ID as aro - so that other people can… what? Score political points against the ace community? Claim ownership over the word? Seriously, you do not need the historical ownership in order to use the term now, can we not do this?

And now we return to your regular scheduled Tolkien linguistic geekery.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
epochryphal

A Note On Quoi-

I see a lot of folks defining “quoi-” as meaning “can’t tell the difference between two attractions”

And like, I get it, that’s kind of close (although I have criticisms). And there’s been a lot of people redefining it to mean that. Ok. But…like…

That’s kind of, presuming, that everyone (who isn’t simply “a-”) experiences the attractions in question? Or ‘probably’ does and just…can’t tell? (Allo-as-default much?)

Plus, what I meant was more like…

  • ??? what? quoi?? wtf???? what even.
  • not grokking {romance, romantic attraction, romantic orientation / sexual attraction, sexual orientation / gender, respectively}
  • the above brackets just don’t make sense
  • actively disidentifying with the above brackets as sensible/applicable categories for you
  • formally: the above brackets “inaccessible, inapplicable, non-sensical, &c”

Because like. My brand of greyness/quoi is “wtf even is sexual attraction am i experiencing it RIGHT NOW uhhhhhhh oh my god this doesn’t make sense.” I rather disidentify with sexual attraction/orientation as sensemaking for me.

Like, if you told me “oh, so you can’t tell the difference between sexual and platonic attraction?” my response would be “do I even experience sexual attraction??? why are you assuming I do?? the point is I can’t tell??”

Seriously, my quoi bloggin tag documents all of this, as does my quoi tag, and quoiromantic, quoisexual, and quoigender tags.  So do the coinage post for quoigender, the elaboration for quoisexual, the consolidation for quoiromantic.  It’s all right there.

Signed, epochryphal, 12-31-2014.

Avatar

Terms 101

It’s been a while since I posted a vocab list and I so I thought for pride month I’d put one out there again. 

Polyamory- the practice of having more than one romantic/sexual partner and/or the experience of falling in love with more than one person at a time (shortened to poly, polya, or polyam)

Polyamorous- an identity in which someone practices polyamory or a way of describing a non-monogamous relationship

Monogamy- the practice of having relationships in which two people are romantic and sexual exclusively with each other

Non-monogamy- the practice of having relationships in which people are not exclusive (sexually, romantically, ect)

Non-monogamous- functions as an umbrella terms for all the varieties of sexual and nonsexual relationships that are not monogamous

Metamour- your partner’s partner, someone who is dating your partner but that you are not dating

Polycule- an interconnected chain of partners and metamours, all the people you are dating, who they are dating, and who they are dating

Hierarchical polyamory- a polyamorous relationship in which one partner has a special prioritized positions, usually but not always someone you live with, are legally married to, or are raising children with

Primary- the prioritized partner in a hierarchical relationship

Egalitarian polyamory- a polyamorous relationship is which no partner has priority

Anchor- a partner you live with or raise children with who isn’t prioritized or for people who don’t like the term primary

Poly-fidelity- a polyamorous relationship in which several people all date each other and do not date anyone outside of the closed group

Relationship anarchy- a relationship structure in which priority is not giving to one type of relationship over others, romantic, sexual, and platonic are seen as equally important

Hope these come in handy for anybody new or coming by the check out the community this pride month

Avatar
reblogged

I love being bi and pan

I love it so much

I love knowing myself and having a good relationship with every label I use to describe myself, even outside of bi and pan

I love my freedom to exist and discuss myself on my own terms

I love that no matter what words I choose to describe myself I am still me and deserve to live a safe, fulfilling life

I love being pan

I love being bi

I love being queer

I love being nonbinary

I love all the nonbinary language I have for myself that would fill up the whole post to write down

I love being genderqueer and gender nonconforming and genderfuck and trans

No one will be able to take this love away from me, they have tried and failed already

Avatar
reblogged

on the policing of queer language and terminology

I think it’s important when you stumble upon a debate about who is or isn’t ~allowed~ to use certain terms then you should always take a step back and ask yourself the following two questions:

  1. If we forbid a certain group of people from using certain terminology then who actually benefits from that ban?
  2. What harm would be done to whom if said group of people just used the terminology in question?

Example A: When there’s discourse about whether or not bisexual woman are allowed to use “butch/femme” then you can pretty much stop bothering with any arguments about historcal accuracy if you just ask:

  1. Who benefits when bi women are forbidden from using “butch/femme”? —- the answer is: biphobes, because they would succeed in alienating bisexual women from queer spaces and it would make it harder for bi women to talk about their sexuality if they are only granted a limited vocabulary to do so. Ultimately that’s leading to more bi invisibility and more bi people who don’t feel “queer enough”.
  2. What harm would be done to lesbians if bi women used “butch/femme”? —- the answer is: none, because bi women are just as capable as lesbians are to understand what it’s like to be a sapphic woman and the existence of bi butches and femmes doesn’t take anything away from lesbian butches and femmes.

Example B: On the question of whether straight cis people should be allowed to use “top/bottom” (be it for piv sex or pegging or whatever else they might be doing in their bedrooms):

  1. Who benefits from forbidding straight cis people to use “top/bottom”? —- the answer is: well, probably biphobes again? because they tend to see every m/f couple as inherently straight even if one or both partners in that couple are actually bi. but most importantly, and that’s admittedly where this entire post was supposed to lead to: gatekeepers who think they have the authority to decide who is “queer enough” benefit immensely from that. bear with me, I promise it gets clearer when we jump to the second question…
  2. What harm would be done to queer people if straight cis people used “top/bottom”? —- the answer is: none. However, restricting people’s access to queer language, even if a ban seems to be directed at straight cis people only, ultimately also hits queer people. Specifically queer people in m/f relationships that ~look straight~ and closeted and questioning people. Maybe it’s just my personal experience with running this blog but I have read countless messages by people who were still identifying as straight yet started questioning their sexuality but they didn’t dare to use queer terminology and labels in case they turned out to actually be straight. They were afraid of overstepping a boundary or infringing on queer territory that they as “straight” people don’t belong in. If we keep insisting that certain language is only for Certified Queer People that ultimately alienates those who are in the process of discovering they are not actually straight and/or cis. Add to that the plenty of messages from bisexuals who weren’t sure if they were “queer enough” to exist in queer spaces and use queer lingo, especially if they were in an m/f relationship.  And hey, even if we talk about actual real straight cis people who use “top/bottom” then so what? Why would you care about how other people describe their sex lives. If they find those terms useful then who are you to deny them that?

Those are just two examples that came to my mind - one I see frequently, one we’ve recently been asked about. There’s probably other such debates out there and maybe not all of them are as unfounded as these two but when you start asking about benefit and harm then you’re beginning to see how much of it boils down to gatekeeping. Gatekeepers are people who think they have some God-given power that gives them the authority to decide who is allowed to enter their sacred club. They restrict the use of ~their language~ as if language is a product that you can own but only if you’re “queer enough” or “queer in the right way”. If you’re one inch too straight for their taste then you have to hand in your queer dictionary? 

tl;dr: Placing bans and restrictions on queer terminology ultimately causes more harm to queer people than benefit.

Maddie

Avatar

I really hate on this website that we erased the term monosexism as it was a very useful term m-spec people have being using for years but terfs decided it was bad becuse it group them with straight people and all of you believed it.

Monosexism is the belief that people who are only attracted to one gender is somehow better or more superior to those who are not monosexual.

Monosexism seeing everything as only gay or straight and if your not you either lying or making things up.

Monosexism is erasing multisexual people are seeing them as less memebers in tge community.

Monosexism is seeing multisexual people are dangerous and dirty

Monosexism is seeing m-spec men as gay men who havent fully accepted themselves as gay.

Monosexism is seeing m-spec women as either lesbians or straight women depending on who your talking to

Monosexism is not seeing multisexual as a full identity and only half of something or on the way of realizing our ‘true’ sexuality.

But you guys all decided it was bad becuase terfs said it ‘group gays with the straights and that it was inherently evil for that.’ And you believed it.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net