#queer education

[fixing-bad-posts]

These are my hot takes. I am absolutely with the trans community. I fully support them.

[acexualien]

Part 1: Asexual Spectrum Identities & Orientations

Here's part 1 of my new series - Asexual Spectrum Identities & Orientations! 🥳🥰

💬 Do or did you relate to any of these from this post (at one point)? Leave a comment 🧡

❓ I hope I could explain everything so that it's understandable, but if you have any questions, let me know in the comments - please be respectful!

💡 If you want to skip the preface, the definitions start at slide 5! But I recommend reading through them ;)

[the-fox-collective]

The way some perisex people will flip over backwards to find excuses to use the h slur is just straight up depressing. You can give them so many sources, explain so many times how they're wrong, how they're hurting intersex people, and they just don't fucking care. It's "not that big of a deal."

They don't realise that by saying that they are saying that the medical maltreatment and abuse of intersex people, which is so normalised it is considered standard treatment, isn't that big a deal. They are saying the countless murders of intersex people (usually infants and children!) due to being intersex isn't that big of a deal. They are saying our erasure isn't that big of a deal, that the way we're seen as a talking point and not PEOPLE isn't that big of a deal, the way we are incorrectly portrayed in almost all depictions of ourselves. They are saying our oppression isn't that big of a deal, that our lives aren't a big deal.

Intersex lives go on, no matter if you don't want them to. We are abused in so many ways that nobody else understands and then erased from our own stories but we fucking exist. We exist and we always have.

You can defend your bigotry all the want but it doesn't stop it being bigotry. Learn to listen to us or learn to shut the fuck up.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Bisexuality, as a sexual orientation, encompasses attraction to more than one gender. Despite growing acceptance, bisexual individuals often confront unique challenges that differ from both heterosexual and homosexual experiences.

[duskyumbra-indigo-1hundredand1]

POLYAMOUROUS PEOPLE ARE NOT CHEATING.

Polyamory is CONSTENTUAL non-monogamy. Cheating is when you go with someone else without consent from your partner.

Yes polyamorous people can still cheat, but being polyamorous does not mean someone is inherently a cheater.

Polyamory has genuine care, communication, and consent. Cheating does not.

[dhddmods]

Hi, I'm a mom (18) who's child (4) is intersex and I'm unsure of how to present the information that they are intersex to them.

Their intersex conditions aren't ones that affect their physical appearance but they may cause pain or discomfort to them and I want to approach the subject in a calm and knowledgeable way, however I don't have a ton of information on intersex conditions as whole (even though I myself am intersex as well).

I've done research into intersex conditions but I'm finding it difficult to convert that research into discussions about people

Do you think you could help me figure out how to discuss it in an age appropriate manner?

and maybe help me turn discussions of conditions into discussions of people?

Thanks,

Celeste

Hello! Now, keep in mind that we are not actively parents, and that you don't have to follow our advice word for word.

Our first note would be to make sure you present information straightforward enough (but not overly professional.) For example, don't call genitals by nicknames (ie; "your cookie") as this leads to confusion and also makes it difficult for your child to explain their own body (and, God forbid, potential sexual assault/harassment) to you or other trusted people in their life.

Here are some loose examples of how we would explain different things to young children. We'd improvise a lot based on that childs attention span, interests, and language understanding.

(It might be easiest to split up these discussions to different times, so the child can process information previously discussed before being introduced to more. That could help avoid details getting mixed together.)

[Show your child educational illustrations of genitals] "This is a penis. This is a vulva. Most people have one of these, but some people have a mix or neither. You never know what a person has and it's not nice to ask or guess. These are your 'private parts' - which means they are parts that nobody should be touching or looking at except for you and sometimes doctors."

(Later in life ofc this discussion will come back around to include sexual consent, and that they can share their body with people who they consent to, but right now they're too young to go into all of that.)

[Show your child educational illustrations of the mullerian duct and wolffian duct. Point at things while explaining.] "This is a uterus and ovaries. A uterus is where babies grow, and that's why people who are pregnant get big tummies! Sometimes, though, the uterus is very small, which means there isn't room for a baby to grow there. This is a prostate and testicles. Testicles usually make sperm, which are like little fish that swim around. But some testicles don't have any sperm, and are empty instead. Like an empty fishbowl. Sometimes, people have a mix of these [point at both the mullerian duct and wolffian duct], or neither of these! Sometimes, a person has one of these with pieces that aren't there - like a prostate with no testicles! [Cover up the vas deferens and testicles with your hands.]"

We're assuming that your child has a reproductive variation based on your phrasing, so to add onto that, you could explain what is inside of their body. Point at their tummy and explain it (drawings may help.)

"You have [insert thing here]. That means that you have this [show drawing] in your tummy. Sometimes it will [describe symptoms in a simplified but clear way], and that might hurt. You can always tell me if it's hurting and I'll help you the best I can."

And if you want to explain hormones, we'd do so like this:

"Hormones are what makes teenagers and adults grow hair on their faces and bodies. It's also what makes their voices sound the way they do. For some people, it gives them curves or breasts. Sometimes people have a lot of hormones. Sometimes people have a little bit of hormones, or no hormones. If someone has no hormones, then a doctor can give it to them, so that they can grow!"

Hell, you can even explain chromosomes!

"Chromosomes are little Xs and Ys that float around in your body. They tell your body what to do! Most people have two XXs that float together, or an X and a Y that float together. But some people have only one X, or many Xs, or many Ys!"

You can frame this through terms your kid understands, by sort of personifying chromosomes. Explain it like the Xs and Ys are characters, and are marching around barking orders to the rest of the body.

(Here's a little graphic we made if you want to use it. We call it "the chromosome tree.")

As for how this could turn into a discussion of people, once you've explained the basic idea of genitals and reproductive organs (and hormones and chromosomes if that seems suiting to do), you can expand beyond that.

You can tell your kid that everybody is special because everybody has a body that's a little different from each other.

You could potentially lead this into discussions of how even though being different is not a bad thing, it can sometimes be difficult. And that some people are not very nice to people who are different, but thats a very bad thing, and you should never be mean to people who don't look or function like you.

You can talk about how people form communities based on their similarities and differences, too. And so even when you are very different, there's still always some place where you belong.

(If you need any educational diagrams to show your kid, we'd be happy to provide them!)

[viragoposting]

So you're an anti-assimilationist? I argue the eradication of bio-essentialism should eliminate gender categorization entirely.

"Biology" as Oppression.

I advocate for the abolition of bioessentialism and for a complete reconstruction of what it means—and looks like—to be human. If assimilationism is defined as women gaining rights only by erasing or conforming womanhood or femininity, strictly rooted in biological sex, then I reject it. The removal of gender and sex as determinants of destiny is crucial for liberation.

Patriarchy is embedded within what we call “biology.” It justifies its own existence by presenting its rule as inevitable, immovable, and inescapable: “Men are stronger, so they must take most positions in society, be primary workforce, protect family, and so on.” Under this logic, sex is assigned gender, and gender is then assigned fundamentally unequal social roles. Those classified as “female” or “feminine” are structurally barred from meaningful stratification within this system. Historically only under conditions like aristocracy, or economic bourgeois do the effects of misogyny meaningfully lessen, because class power partially overrides gendered subordination.

Conversely, those classified as “men” are trapped by a form of power that ultimately collapses under its own weight. Any attempt to deconstruct or transgress patriarchy marks them as traitors, reinforcing the system through fear. Power is hoarded to prevent it from being weaponized against them, and in doing so, it becomes internally corrosive. The system sustains itself by punishing deviation on all sides, funneling harm through all bodies assigned gendered meaning.

Gender performance, however, has always been separate from biology. Social expectations—“men wear pants,” “women wear makeup,” or the assumed visual and behavioral “look” of a sex—are imposed scripts, not innate truths. Masculine women and feminine men are described as gender-nonconforming because their gender expression does not align with the prescribed performance associated with their assigned sex. By removing bioessentialism, space is created for genuine freedom of gender. Without the false inevitability of biological destiny, gender can exist as expression rather than mandate, and humanity can be reimagined beyond hierarchical constraint.

To separate gender from sex is not an abstract or symbolic project; it is a material necessity. As long as sex is treated as destiny, gender continues to function as a mechanism of social control. The binding of gender to sex allows hierarchy to masquerade as nature, foreclosing resistance by framing inequality as pre-political rather than produced. Gender, in this configuration, is not identity but assignment: a set of obligations enforced onto bodies to maintain order. Patriarchy relies on collapsing this distinction, punishing deviation as aberration. Those who transgress are framed as unnatural, deceptive, or dangerous precisely because their existence exposes the fiction. If gender can move independently of sex, the entire architecture of gendered hierarchy is revealed as contingent, enforced, and therefore dismantlable.

Failure to deconstruct the myth of “male physical superiority” allows patriarchy to endlessly reassert itself. Even when legal rights shift or cultural narratives soften, the specter of “natural” strength is summoned to reimpose unequal roles, justify authority, and police deviation. Strength is socially produced: men are encouraged to build muscle, take up space, and endure pain, while women are restricted, aestheticized, or punished for cultivating physical power. Sex-segregated sports exemplify this logic. They do not protect fairness; they preserve hierarchy by allocating training, resources, prestige, and development along “sexed” lines informed by bioessentialist assumptions. Mixed competition threatens this illusion, revealing that difference collapses under equal conditions. As long as strength is treated as “male property” rather than a human capacity, gendered domination remains intact.

Alongside bioessentialism, gender essentialism must also be dismantled. If bioessentialism claims anatomy determines destiny, gender essentialism claims that identity itself carries fixed traits, behaviors, or aesthetics. Masculinity becomes equated with dominance, femininity with submission, and androgyny with neutrality, as though these categories are stable rather than socially enforced. Gender essentialism preserves hierarchy by relocating it from the body to the self, rebranding coercion as authenticity.

Gender essentialism exists as a system of associations: behaviors, affects, labors, and presentations historically bundled together and assigned political meaning. Masculinity is not male, femininity is not female, and nonbinary identity is not inherently androgynous. These ideological shortcuts erase existence. Masculine women exist. Feminine men exist. Trans people exist. Their existence exposes gender not as essence, but as an imposed order that fails to account for lived complexity.

This does not mean internal experiences of gender are immaterial or unreal. Desire, identification, and self-understanding are profoundly real, embodied, and socially mediated. They are shaped by lived conditions, recognition, exclusion, and survival. What must be rejected is the insistence that gender necessarily corresponds to a fixed set of traits, aesthetics, behaviors, or social functions. When masculinity is treated as inherently male, femininity as inherently female, or nonbinary identity as inherently androgynous, gender becomes another regulatory schema, ultimately feeding back into patriarchal organization. True liberation requires dismantling both bioessentialism and gender essentialism, freeing bodies and identities from imposed hierarchy and allowing humanity to exist beyond preordained function or expectation. Just as gender itself can exist independently of sex, gender roles must also be understood as customizable rather than fixed. The behaviors, expectations, and “scripts” traditionally assigned to men and women are socially constructed tools of patriarchy—they are not inevitable, and they can be played with, inverted, or reimagined. This does not mean their oppressive weight disappears automatically; the history and social enforcement of these roles must still be acknowledged. Gender roles carry material consequences because they were designed to enforce hierarchy, and ignoring that context risks reproducing the same dynamics in a new form. However, when gender roles are deliberately expressed outside patriarchal norms, they can become sites of freedom rather than domination. Consider a interpersonal partnership in which a woman assumes a leading role, and a man assumes a following role. Within patriarchy, such roles in relations are coded as “wrong,” “unnatural,” or “disruptive” because they invert expected hierarchies. But in a context where the arrangement is consensual, pleasurable, and affirming for both parties, these roles can be explored as fluid, expressive, and even empowering. They play the system on its head precisely because they violate the scripts “not supposed to happen.” This inversion demonstrates that the meaning of roles is not intrinsic but relational and contingent. Caregiving, leadership, or nurturance are not inherently male or female—they acquire coercive weight only when embedded within patriarchal expectations. When detached from that enforcement, the same roles can be reclaimed, rearranged, and made liberatory. Gender roles, like gender itself, are tools, and their oppressive attributes exist only within systems designed to enforce inequality. Recognizing this allows people to navigate identity and expression creatively, while still accounting for the structural forces that historically made those roles instruments of control, and how to not repeat them. The reversed dynamic also illuminates the constructed nature of roles themselves. By stepping into traditionally patriarchal behaviors without oppression, the roles are stripped of their coercive significance. Leadership, assertiveness, and dominance become tools of self-expression, negotiation, and mutual engagement. Submission, receptivity, and nurturance likewise become affirming choices, not marks of inferiority. Every script of oppression is revealed as socially contingent, not universal, showing that hierarchy is not natural—it is enforced.

[fox-c-rabbit]

unfriendly reminder that aces, pansexuals, and enbies are fucking valid and real

"pansexuality is both biphobic and transphobic" honey where did you pick that up from that's a load of bullshit

"Pansexual (often shortened to pan) is a sexual orientation describing an individual who experiences sexual attraction to individuals regardless of their gender."

"Since pansexual individuals experience attraction regardless of gender identity, they effectively experience attraction to all gender identities, which may cause confusion with omnisexuality."

where the fuck is the biphobia or transphobia in there? see any, babe? yeah? clean your fucking glasses

(source- https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Pansexual)

"The term "asexual" may also be used as an umbrella term for any sexual orientation that is not allosexual, referring to anyone on the asexual spectrum."

asexuality is a fucking queer experience. it is bullshit that they "don't belong" in the queer community for any fucking reason.

(source- https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Asexual)

"no one identified as nonbinary before it was cool" my fucking guy, do you know what google is. do you know what a search engine is. you said this on the internet, i don't think you know how to use it because i found shit to argue against that bullshit claim so fucking quickly

"Some of the earliest recorded instances of non-binary individuals come from Mesopotamia. In Mesopotamian mythology, there are references to the types of individuals who are not men and not women. Many priests or individuals who preformed religious duties were described as a third gender."

(source- https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Non-Binary)