your local kewl queer

quinn/ellis • they/them • xe/xyr • 19 • bi acemid agenderflux enby (tme) • white • 🏳️‍🌈discourse, positivity and general LGBT+ stuff 🏳️‍🌈 • icon by ummmmandy • 🔪TERFS/MAPS DNI🔪 nav • opinions + dnf

[violettomcat-archived]

*smacks you over the head with a poorly put-together history textbook I made in crafts* LEARN BISEXUAL HISTORY BEFORE YOU ACT KNOWLEDGABLE

“Bisexual—being emotionally and physically attracted to all genders.” - GLSEN in fucking 1998

“Do not assume that bisexuality is binary or duogamous in naturs [...] In fact, don’t assume that there are only two genders.” 1990 Bi Manifesto

“But there are also many bis, such as myself, for whom gender has no place in the list of things that attract them to a person.“ 2002

“Bisexual people are those for whom gender is not the first criteria in determining attraction.” 2003

“Assuming that all bisexuals are never attracted to trans or genderqueer folk is harmful, not only to bi individuals, but to trans and genderqueer individuals who choose to label themselves as bi.”

“Bisexual: A person who is attracted to people regardless of gender (a person does not have to have a relationship to be bisexual!)” 2003

“These data support the argument that, for some bisexual individuals, sexual attraction is not gender-linked.” 1992

[violettomcat-archived]

Here’s a collection of older sources because I was too tired to continue last night and I also wanna link a better blog. Sources collected and put into a post by @verilybitchie

[verilybitchie]

Love this. The first link is dead though, can anyone help with that? I think it’s maybe from Out of the Past Teachers Guide by GLSEN, Sep 1, 1998. The fourth quote doesn’t appear to have a clear date attached, as the PDF itself cites more recent dates than 2003. The fifth quote doesn’t have a date attached, but I can trace it with the wayback machine to 2016. I can trace the next 2003 one back as early as 2008, though it’s probably older.

It’s sad we have to do this kind of work.

Since OP mentioned my post, I think they won’t mind me adding it here:

1974

Kate Millett concluded her December, 1974 talk by lauding ‘the very wealth and humanity of bisexuality itself: for to exclude from one’s love any entire group of human beings because of class, age, or race or religion, or sex, is surely to be poorer - deeply and systematically poorer.’

quote from “The Bisexual Movement’s Beginnings in the 70s“, Bisexual Politics, referring to 1974

1984

J: Are we ever going to be able to define what bisexuality is? S: Never completely. That’s just it – the variety of lifestyles that we see between us defies definition.

Boston Bisexual Women’s Network Newsletter, January 1984

1986

I believe most of us will end up acknowledging that we love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.

From an issue of Bi Women: the Newsletter of the Boston Bisexual Women’s Network, 1986

1990

[B]isexual usually also implies that relations with gender minorities are possible.

Bisexuality: a Reader and Sourcebook, Thomas Geller, 1990

1992

Bisexuals fall in love with a person, not a gender

A bisexual’s survey response in Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism, Weise, 1992

With respect to our integrity as bisexuals, it is our responsibility to include transgendered people in our language, in our communities, in our politics, and in our lives.

“The Next Natural Step” by Naomi Tucker, Anything that Moves, No. 4,1992

1995

The bisexual community should be a place where lines are erased. Bisexuality dismisses, disproves, and defies dichotomies. It connotes a loss of rigidity and absolutes. It is an inclusive term.

Martin-Damon, K., “Essay for the Inclusion of Transsexuals”. Bisexual Politics. New York: Harrington Park Press. 1995

[B]isexual consciousness, because of its amorphous quality and inclusionary nature, posed a fundamental threat to the dualistic and exclusionary thought patterns which were - and still are - tenaciously held by both the gay liberation leadership and its enemies.

“The Bisexual Movement’s Beginnings in the 70s”, Bisexual Politics, edited by Naomi Tucker, 1995

1998

The probability is that your relationship is based on, or has nestled itself into something based more on the relationship between two identities than on the relationship between two people. That’s what we’re taught: man/man, woman/woman, woman/man, top/bottom, butch/femme, man/woman/man, etc. We’re never taught person/person. That’s what the bisexual movement has been trying to teach us.

My Gender Workbook, Kate Bornstein, 1998

[strangytie]

@verilybitchie You’re 100% correct! What happened was GLSEN remade some of their website about a month after I made this post and the source link got destroyed, so I reached out and got a digital copy directly from them! The rest of the sources are saved on wayback machine to be safe.

You can now read the full 1998 guidebook here on Google Drive!

[soacethetic]

hmm i’ll probably delete this blog or at least,, it’s not gonna be active. i haven’t been putting any effort into it recently and i’m never gonna convince assholes to have basic decency to others on this site through “discourse” so,, this’ll probably be my last post?? my opinions r still the same and @ anyone still following me ily. if u care to u can catch me on my main @crptdkssr or my dumb art blog @quiptid. if not,, see y’all!! and i hope y’all have a good day and a good life :^)

[engulfes]

to consume keith haring’s art while disregarding or ignoring his activism is immoral

[dizzymoods]

also immoral to ignore that he would have sex with underage latinx and black boys whom he used as “muses” or whatever

[aromoji]

Damn, I never knew about that, yikes

[e-catboy-anti]

op was a bitch so i’m stealing this it’s mine now

pride flag for when ur gender is just knife cat

[citizen-zero]

YA literature? You mean books about Super Special White Girl and Her Mysterious Brooding Boyfriend?

[readyalit-blog]

Here’s a list of black YA leads! And ten Native American protagonists! And a list of ladies who love ladies in YA! And genderqueer / transgender YA leads! And more queer titles! And 2015 / 2016 YA books with Asian / East Asian leads! And bisexual YA leads! And Muslim YA leads! And asexual YA leads! And YA Interrobang’s entire section on diverse YA fiction! *confetti*

[hikatebishop]

PLEASE REBLOG THIS

[antielricest]

"I don't support it in real life"

Then stop normalizing it Then stop romanticizing it Then stop pretending it’s “hot” Then stop pretending it’s “cute”

[barrenwomb]

will you ever understand that fiction is NOT reality

[antielricest]

the brain reacts to fictional situtations they same way it does with real situations

a collection of links to articles about how fiction affects reality

but yeah, fiction totally doesnt impact reailty

[aromoji]

Controversial take but you can make your point about why Ao3 is bad without adding a  jab at ace/pan/queer people

[demiboy-mint-choco-deactivated2]

How’d I know they’d be taking shots at us the MINUTE I saw the dyed hair.

[body-timeshare]

I know I just reblogged this, but it’s getting hard to spot the difference between some 4chan caricatures of lgbtq people and tumblr funnymen caricatures of lgbtq people

[yamchass]

i love how they could just stop at the ace flag but instead they have to add another identity that includes same gender attraction like they just cant go one day without being homophobic

[nutella-wells]

HOZIER TOUCHING THE ASEXUAL FLAG. A MYTHICAL GOD IN THE PRESENCE OF MYTHICAL CREATURES. WE FUCKING EXIST.

[chicposting]

[fancyfroggiebeee-deactivated202]

Here's all the pride worms so far!!

[x-v4mp3y3lin3r-x]

rb if you think trans guys/enbys are hot in skirts

[arovaricious]

Arophobic inclusionists shut up forever challenge

[bering-strait-deactivated202005]

the vast majority of doctors before 1980: (use every legal excuse to neglect, maim and kill trans people)

transmeds: the only objective opinions we can trust come from doctors. doctors have never been wrong about anything before and therefore we should treat everything they say as gospel

[enbycourse]

Ah yes because stuff that happened FORTY YEARS AGO 100% accurately reflects newer doctors and the increased amount of information we have on transgenderism.

[soacethetic]

this would be a nice sentiment if transmeds listened to anything current medical professionals have to say on being trans (also.... “transgenderism” lmao..)

[queerlection]

[Image description - Images of a trans, nonbinary and nonbinary poc pride flag with the text: NB people who use he/him are still nonbinary, NB people who use she/her are still nonbinary. End description.]

🌈 Support me on Kofi 🌈 Instagram 🌈 Make a Request 🌈

[soacethetic]

PSA re ‘Allo’

The term allo exists only as a word that differentiates aces and aros from non-aces and non-aros.

It’s useful as a term to describe commonality in experiences and as a way to refer to non-aspecs both respectfully and without othering aces/aros. It doesn’t label people’s sex drives, activity or attitude toward sex, nor should it be used to condemn those things.

Uses of ‘allosexism/amatonormativity/aphobia’ etc do not imply that allo lgbt+ people are in a position to oppress aces/aros. Just like ‘monosexism/biphobia,’ it covers discrimination specific to that group, both from oppressors and lateral discrimination. If someone is using it to denote an oppressor/oppressed context, they are wrong.

[zoingfandom-moved]

It is offensive because it assumes someone doesn’t identify with the long list of terms aspecs have come up with. Even if there was just grayasexual and grayaromantic, it’s offensive to pin someone as nowhere on the gray spectrum. You often can’t know the intricacies of people’s internal feelings.

[zoingfandom-moved]

*can’t relate to nor be similar to

[soacethetic]

I don’t really follow your logic. Asexuality and aromanticism, like any orientation or gender, is based on self-identification. There’s no assumptions here? If someone doesn’t identify as aspec, they’re not aspec, ie allo.

From what I understand, you’re saying “allo—“ is offensive bc some allo people might *actually* be aspec and just not know it. While that’s technically true I guess, it also applies to pretty much every lgbt+ identity. There are surely cis people who aren’t *actually* cis, and simply haven’t encountered the nonbinary microlabel that fits, but no one (except maybe terfs) are implying calling people ‘cis’ is offensive bc u can’t know the intricacies of other’s feelings?

[zoingfandom-moved]

That’s not quite what i mean, though i see how you got that from my reply.

At least 1. There could be said to be a spectrum between trans and cis, and in that case trans and cis are the clear endpoints, 2. “Is with their agab” is a simplistic thing to note, and 3. Transphobia is a very significant oppression, and cis privilege is a very significant privilege. And i do think there is gray area and debateableness about it, as i ID as a cis nb woman myself.

But with allo, there is no logical opposite to asexual. “Attraction to people all the time” is not seriously referenced when people talk about allosexuality. I’ve seen definitions like can be attracted to strangers, has frequent attraction, has attraction without limitations (don’t most people have limits?), has free attraction (assumes easy relationship w sex/romance). There isn’t a consensus on what kind of sexuality allosexuality actually *is*. This doesn’t make a basis for describing differences in experience between aspecs and allosexuals. I really think it’s okay to describe how experiences can be different between people without needing to decide someone is “so normal” or “relates to norms”.

And furthermore, there isn’t necessarily a significant difference between non-ace acespecs and allosexuals privilege-wise. Aspecs can also be any orientation, which also heavily modifies relationship to orientation privilege, since aspecs can be hetero, and people who decide not to use an aspec term can be gay or bi. Aspecs who do not believe in allo privilege think cishet allos are the oppressors whereas cishet aspecs are oppressed/marginalized. That’s an awfully big assertion for something so vague.

Gender is not equatable to orientation anyway as gender modifies how someone relates to people of other genders, whereas orientation is about tangible sexual and romantic feelings. Identities about tangible things need tangible lines.

[soacethetic]

ok so trans isn’t “one endpoint” of the gender spectrum. while I’m not gonna tell u how to personally identify, all nonbinary identities count as trans, no matter how close to a person’s AGAB they are. and you’re right in that transphobia is much more significant oppression than aphobia, and gender isn’t orientation. I didn’t mean it as a one to one comparison, just an example.

and allosexuality isn’t its own sexuality. just like “monosexual” isn’t. that’s kinda the point. all it is is a synonym for “not aspec,” as “monosexual” is a synonym for “not bi+.” and while we can argue all day over what “counts” as aspec or not, the ace/aro spectrums exist for people who relate to the ace/aro label, people who are more ace/aro than not, people who are ace/aro with an exception etc. they’re personal labels and exist to acknowledge that grey area, not to simplify it. I don’t see how this is somehow opposite to discussions about sexuality, nor how it labels all allo people as experiencing sexuality in the same way.

The assertion that cishet allo people marginalise aspec people in similar ways to lgbtq people is hardly vague or a leap in logic, it’s been proven in several studies. If your argument is aspec people aren’t ace/aro enough to count as part of the marginalised group then?? I don’t really understand how this is relevant to my op or how this could be proven or even ultimately matter?? There are cis bi people who are mostly attracted to the opposite gender, who have only dated the opposite gender, there are enbys who identify alongside and present as their AGAB. If you were feeling especially dickish you could redirect the argument to any marginalised group. What r u hoping to achieve with this argument?

[zoingfandom-moved]

You can’t be more or less of a lack of attraction; either you are, aren’t, or are questioning. My point is that the overlap of acespecs and the sexualities of allosexuals, and arospecs and the romanticisms of alloromantics, is so broad and so unknown because the aro/ace spectrums are so subjective, nitpicky, and abstract. And therefore that it isn’t useful to even call anyone ‘allo’. Someone can just use 'aphobe’ when talking about marginalization.

This contrasts to cisgender vs agab-aligned enbies, where cisgender is simply a complete alignment with agab. And gender-based orientation, where heteroness is simply exclusive man/woman attraction. Not identifying / completely as a man/woman, and not having / just hetero attraction, are *clear* violations of societal norms. Having a specific attraction pattern (as we all do in some way)…isn’t so much.

Edit: 'Monosexual’ is also a clear about who it applies to, even if there isn’t 'monosexual privilege’.

[soacethetic]

ok I’m not really here to argue validity of labels, especially when they exist for personal use first and foremost. there is overlap, sure, but not nearly as much as u seem to think - aces are approx 1% of the population, do u rly think aspec labels r being used by your average person with a complicated relationship to sex/romance? aspec labels exist for people who are more ace/aro than not, it’s really not all that vague - a person who’s experienced sexual/romantic attraction once in their life has more in common with aces/aros than allos, and as such will likely experience the associated marginalisation (not that that needs to be some kind of bar for acceptance imo) and is welcome in the community.

while i’ll drop the nonbinary comparison bc equating gender and orientation fails eventually, like you’ve pointed out, I think “mono” is much closer to “allo” than u think. bi+ orientations are complex - there are cis bi ppl who’ve only had experience with/are mostly attracted to the opposite gender and vice versa, there are bi people attracted to nonbinary and binary genders, who aren’t SGA, who ID with smaller labels like “pan” or “ply.” bi orientations have overlap with mono ones - there are some gay/straight people who would date nonbinary people, technically more than one gender (as there is ace/aro and aspec people with different experiences with the label and marginalisation, and perhaps small overlap with allos) and yet there is still more common experience amongst bi+ people than with mono people (as with aspecs vs allos), hence the label. mono doesn’t imply oppression, as with allo. these r incredibly similar terms and it seems strange to see the use in one but not the other.

anyways we really seem to be arguing over nitpicks here and I’m not keen on defending the entire ace/aro spectrum on my lonesome so I’ll probably leave this here :)

[yehudah]

you guys know that criticizing something is not the same as cringe culture right. like saying "this piece of media has extremely offensive elements to it and should be examined under a critical lense" is not the same as "ha ha this 12 year olds fursona is poorly drawn"

[enoughtohold]

“looking like a lesbian” is good actually