zzzzzzzzz @dazeddwarf - Tumblr Blog

siphonharapeco

entertheaardvark-deactivated202

I’m so sorry has everybody seen this bots of new york

the-transfeminine-mystique

the Master whose oracle is at Delphi does not speak, does not dissimulate; he signifies

beesmygod

insane first page to this manga i just opened randomly

ot3

i think a new rule of engagement we should have for discourse is that any time someone says "the lesbian community" "the trans community" "the queer community" or something of that ilk you just dead stop the conversation in its tracks until they have successfully explained what group of people they're trying to refer to with this. because there is no such thing as a 'community' that every lesbian, or every trans person, or every queer person automatically belongs to/participates in, and acting like there is, or that we are all otherwise on the same page about which people these 'communities' actually consist of, lets people do a whole lot of lazy generalization that doesn't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

witnotwitchcraft

...we call the queer community a community because we are choosing to band together for safety and support. it is not woke to say "actually its every man for himself! i have nothing in common with the rest of you freaks!"

ot3

ok. well is "we" in this instance Every Single Queer Person on the planet, or are you perhaps doing a bit of generalization that won't stand up to being scrutinized. dont you think there could be some benefit to attempting to establish which people have made that choice you're referring to, and whose safety they are prioritizing. because if you have to make the choice to do this, then it categorically doesn't include everyone. and if it categorically doesn't include everyone, then conversation only stands to benefit by clarifying who it does include.

witnotwitchcraft

literally no one is able to speak for "every X person on the planet", that gotcha expired three years ago.

"we" refers to anyone who is fighting beside me. self inclusion and self exclusion are copacetic concepts.

i understand the danger of generalizations but if you lean too far in the other direction you get people trying to establish a literal gay card and set of criteria that is Queer Enough.

do you have a specific example of this generalizing language being utilized in a harmful way? it largely seems that language is being used by people being people and speaking in general terms about broad subjects

ot3

when did i say anyone was or wasn't queer enough? this isn't about deciding who does or doesn't actually count as queer this is saying that people are not automatically in community with each other by sharing an orientation label.

here's some examples of how these phrases are used that i don't like:

"the queer community needs to remember our history!" which history? in practice, on tumblr at least, almost always the american lgbt movement. i think its wrong to imply that american queer history Is queer history, and not just the history of queerness in one corner of the world. i think expecting any and everyone to both know and be deferential to the history of the american lgbt movement just because they are queer and speak english, regardless of whether or not thats actually their history, is weird nationalist behavior.

"the trans community has too much infighting" this is a statement that serves to imply that trans people are not allowed to have or capable of having legitimate ideological conflict with each other. it's frequently used to paint trans women specifically as instigators of meaningless internet drama, and completely discredit the critiques they have of the way they're treated by people who are supposedly 'in community' with them

i think pretty much every time "the lesbian community" with no further qualifiers is rhetorically used in a discussion it's been at best meaningless but often actually harmful, because understanding of lesbian identity has long been pretty heavily split between people who are using bioessentialist ideas about who actually Counts as a lesbian and people who aren't. i am not in community with twerfs and never will be, and i think trying to understand or portray lesbianism as a "community" without factoring in these peoples' presence just throws trans women under the bus.

"we refers to anyone who is fighting beside me" is literally a meaningless statement to make to a stranger. i dont know who you are. i don't know what you're fighting for. i dont know what someone has to do to qualify as being beside you. that clarifies nothing. the problem isn't broadness of the category, it is the complete lack of specificity regarding the criteria used to categorize. i'm not trying to gatekeep or police anyone, i'm just saying if you're trying to have a conversation about groups of people, you need to make sure whoever you're addressing can understand who is being rhetorically included in that group.