One of the things that aggravates me even more about some more recent attempts at language policing, is just how obvious it becomes that there is literally no way for some of us to win. No matter how much goalpost shifting and just plain making shit up it requires.

I mean, as got touched on earlier, for at least 25 years I’ve been just having to avoid engaging with what are pretty consistently the same people with the same terrible attitudes. No matter what the details of the ostensible reasoning might be at any given moment for why we’re really the ones causing any problems that might exist.

(And yeah, funny how it keeps working out that a lot of the ones supposedly causing all the trouble and not using the Proper Words are not middle class people from the dominant culture…)

But, that last bit of commentary on a recent reblog also got me thinking again about some earlier discussion, and brought back some not so pleasant memories of the mainstream political situation when I was in high school and college. And some of the ways things have developed from there.

Part of my commentary there:

As some indication of usage and the politics around that over time in the US, it took some heavy campaigning to finally get the B officially included in the name of the 1993 March on Washington. The T was thankfully mentioned in the platform (also references to “the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender movement”)–but still didn’t make it into the official title of the event.

From Lani Ka’ahumanu’s speech:

I am a token, and a symbol. Today there is no difference. I am the token out bisexual asked to speak, and I am a symbol of how powerful the bisexual pride movement is and how far we have come.

I came here in 1979 for the March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights

I returned in 1987 for the March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights

I stand here today on the stage of the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equal Rights and Liberation…

Bisexuals are here, and we’re queer…

Our visibility is a sign of revolt.

Recognition of bisexual orientation and transgender issues presents a challenge to assumptions not previously explored within the politics of gay liberation.

What will it take for the gayristocracy to realize that bisexual, lesbian, transgender, and gay people are in this together, and together we can and will move the agenda forward.

The rest of the speech is worth a look (along with more of the archives there), and a lot of it covers what is still some depressingly familiar exclusionist ground.

It’s a pain to carry over the links, pasting into the mobile editor. Already a lot of fiddly manual formatting required here. So, there are some source links included there if anyone wants them.

But yeah, as another commenter mentioned earlier? At that point in time, she felt the need to point out in that speech that bi people belong there as much as anyone else because we are queer too.

(Not even commenting on the situation regarding the T right now. This is turning long and ranty enough already. Lot of common themes, though.)

Now the same levels of overt surface biphobia are not as socially acceptable in the same communities. Using the word “bisexual” isn’t like the proverbial red flag in front of a whole herd of bulls to anywhere near the same extent. And I get the impression that we’re not supposed to remember when it was safer to call yourself basically anything but that around a sizable chunk of the “The Community”.

(Also, remember when we were the ones inappropriately sexualizing everyone else by using a term we didn’t even invent, ending in “-sexual”? Because I couldn’t forget that if I wanted to; there are a number of things like that. Interesting how essentially the same argument popped right back up more recently, applied to another unpopular group. Hmm.)

Now the “but it’s inherently transphobic!” thing really gets on my nerves, especially given some of the actual history there. But, just using the b-word usually won’t get you the same open hostility now in mixed groups.

So yeah, come back 25 years later and nobody is supposed to say queer. And that reclamation just never happened. Nobody could possibly have ever had any valid reasons for using it. We’re just intent on throwing around “violent slurs” and dividing “The Community”.

And, as I put it a while back:

A lot of the ones trying to pull that stuff now do not seem to fully appreciate that a lot of us have been IDing that way for a long time now precisely because we are those “pissed-off cockroach motherfuckers”.

If we’d been willing to shut up and go away, we probably already would have decades ago. Not planning on it anytime soon, personally.

Once again, it is really none of my business what anybody else wants to call themselves. I don’t have to like all the words anyone else is using. It would be really arrogant to insist otherwise.

That applies to everyone, though.

I also don’t really expect anyone without the same exact history and experiences to fully understand why I make the choices and form the opinions that I do, about pretty much anything. We’re different people, with so many things to decide for ourselves. Again, that applies to all of us.

I’m also really tired of people pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining. Again, pretty consistently the same people, and you’re not supposed to remember the last dozen times it happened.

Nah. It’s usually fairly offensive and coming from the sort of people who say things like “the blacks” or call all latinxs “hispanics”. Personally, I’ll only accept it from older trans people since that (and transexual) was what was used during their youth).

lizardtitties:

pervocracy:

lb-lee:

pervocracy:

(re: “transgendered”)

I don’t know. The events of the last few weeks are starting to make me really feel like I’d much rather have “I support the transgenders! Transgendereds are just people trying to live their lives!” over the sort of people who use absolutely perfect up-to-the-minute gender studies terminology but don’t actually like anyone.

(I mean, not that those are the only two groups, obviously someone can use correct terminology and be supportive and that’s great, but if they’re not willfully misgendering an individual, terminology is like 0.5% of someone’s Trans-Friendliness Score in my book.)

Maybe the difference is whether someone’s just unfamiliar, or whether they’ve been told “transgender is an adjective” and doubled down on “I’ll call you what I want to call you!” But I see the mere-unfamiliarity more often, and I don’t have a problem with that–it means they’re a new supporter, and new supporters are good and valuable to have.

“During their youth”? You mean… within the past ten years?

Look, I after hearing this shit, I smelled bullshit, so I checked the dates and terminology of some of my trans books (as in, by trans creators). And it’s a pretty mixed bag; I see no consensus at all.

Charlie Jane Anders, in The Lazy Crossdresser (from 2002) uses the word ‘transgender’, as does Tristan Crane for self-bio in How Loathsome (2004). But Alicia Goranson’s Supervillainz, from 2006, uses “transman” and “transchick” in the book itself, and both ‘transgender’ and ‘transgendered’ are on the back cover. (If you want to split hairs, Patrick Califia, uses the term “transgendered” in his back cover review, while “transgender” is used on the blurb itself.)

Kate Bornstein in Hello Cruel World uses “transgressively gendered” and “transgender” and that’s also from 2006. But in her earlier book, My Gender Workbook, from 1998, she uses “transgendered.” (Pg. 74, my edition.)

Joey Alison Sayers uses the word ‘transgendered’ for herself in August 2007, in her comic strip Freaking Out the Parents. The Princess comic used the word ‘transgender’ but it seems to have come from later down the line, in 2011. Ditto Take Me There, from the same year, but it mostly “trans.”

As personal experience, when I first started exploring the trans circles online around 2008,
“transgendered” was the polite term, and “transgender” was the one
clueless cis people used. (Because transgender was perceived as a noun or something, while transgendered was perceived as an adjective. I’m not saying this makes sense, but let’s be real, all of this is horseshit anyway.)

If you don’t like the word, fine, but let’s not pretend that this was something everyone agreed was offensive long ago, and that this was a term only used by jerks. Ten years ago is not long, and it was being used by the activists on the front lines.

This is some really good context for the whole discussion.

I don’t know how many people remember the whole “trans” vs “trans*” arguments on this hellsite but back in the day, I had a callout post about me because I didn’t use the star on a post and a callout post because I did use the star on a different post circulating at the same time. As in two different callout posts by two different people, created within days of each other, about how transphobic I was, for opposite reasons.

Nah. It’s usually fairly offensive and coming from the sort of people who say things like “the blacks” or call all latinxs “hispanics”. Personally, I’ll only accept it from older trans people since that (and transexual) was what was used during their youth).

madeofpatterns:

pervocracy:

(re: “transgendered”)

I don’t know. The events of the last few weeks are starting to make me really feel like I’d much rather have “I support the transgenders! Transgendereds are just people trying to live their lives!” over the sort of people who use absolutely perfect up-to-the-minute gender studies terminology but don’t actually like anyone.

(I mean, not that those are the only two groups, obviously someone can use correct terminology and be supportive and that’s great, but if they’re not willfully misgendering an individual, terminology is like 0.5% of someone’s Trans-Friendliness Score in my book.)

Maybe the difference is whether someone’s just unfamiliar, or whether they’ve been told “transgender is an adjective” and doubled down on “I’ll call you what I want to call you!” But I see the mere-unfamiliarity more often, and I don’t have a problem with that–it means they’re a new supporter, and new supporters are good and valuable to have.

This is how I feel about disability terminology.

I don’t care that much which words people say, if what they mean is that they see disabled people as human and think it’s a problem that others don’t.

Just a quick heads-up, because I think this needs to be said (again);

autismserenity:

werewolf-noises:

fuckyeahasexual:

Dear young/questioning aces;

When other people, especially older people, try to ‘educate’ you about how ‘sexuality is complicated’ and how ‘you might not be ace’ and that ‘you’re probably confused’ and that ‘you’re probably [this] instead’,

You run.

Sexuality is indeed complicated, and yes, you might not be ace. But these kinds of people couldn’t care less either way.

Helpful people give you the freedom of choice – whether that choice lasts a lifetime, or until the next morning. Helpful people give you the agency to make your own decision about your own, personal, private identity.

If someone is trying to collectively discourage questioning aces into forgoing their ace identity? That’s not helpful. That’s an illusion of help under the guise of liberation. They’re trying to make you into something they want you to be.

Whether their advice is helpful or not, to any degree, this type of gaslighting and manipulation is not what you deserve. You can get the same kind of answers and help and support from people who aren’t damaging and toxic.

Find people who will let you be ace. Find people who will let you be yourself.

– Fae

This.

I’ve run into this to varying degrees, from immediately blatant to ignorantly innocent to subtly but deeply manipulative.

The common thread is, in one form or another “anything *but* asexual”. It’s always got to be something else or there always HAS to be doubt. There’s always something “that’s the real issue and we should focus on that instead”.

That helps nobody, that directly perpetuates the pain and confusion you should be helping combat. Don’t do it.

this is yet another example of the everyday mundane microaggressions that aces share with the rest of the community. we all get this crap from the outside world, let’s not do it to each other.

my least favorite version of it might be the super-subtle one where people act like they “support” you by ONLY telling you that maybe you’re not and maybe you’ll change your mind and that that’s okay. Often accompanied by things like “don’t worry if you’re not sure! you don’t have to make up your mind yet!”

Because that actually means “I don’t believe you and I don’t want to believe you, please tell me you ‘changed your mind.’”

geniusorinsanity:

jewishomgcp:

bialevin:

jewishomgcp:

i want to talk about the word “jew” for a hot second, because i don’t think gentiles understand why some jewish people don’t like being called that. this year, cnn had a banner that said “Alt-right founder questions if Jews are people.” now, they’ve gotten a lot of backlash for it, and apologized, but here’s the point: the sentence “Are Jews People?” is very different from “Are Jewish people people?” See, in the second sentence, the absolute ridiculousness of the question is even more clear, because of course a jewish person is a person, it’s right in the name. But by calling jewish people “jews,” it allows certain groups to dehumanize us, remove our personhood. I’m not suggesting we get rid of the term “jew” entirely, but the full word is something to keep in mind when using it.

That argument doesn’t really make sense. At all. Does that mean we can’t say “Christians” either? Or Muslims? Or women? Because if you think about it the same argument could be made. The phrase “are women people?” would have to be changed to “are female people people?”

I’m Jewish and I really don’t think this argument holds up. I’ll be here waiting for another argument for that if someone would like to provide one. I sure love a good discussion (Jewish people usually do 😉 ).

@bialevin I want to open this by telling you how many jewish people have replied to this post thanking me for articulating feelings they couldn’t or agreeing that it makes them uncomfortable. I think that speaks to itself: it’s a term that has historically been used to make us into a faceless, dehumanized mass. Even the wikipedia page on the word jew has a section on antisemitism which comments that “The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether…” and “ Indeed, when used as an adjective (e.g. “Jew lawyer”) or verb (e.g. “to jew someone”),^[4] the term Jew is purely pejorative.” Again, I’m not suggesting we BAN the word. I’m saying it should be used carefully.

You are not the only person to make this argument, but I think you are the first jewish person. If you’re not The problem with your argument is that you’re comparing the use of “jew” to the wrong things. Calling us jews has been used similarly to how some people use “blacks” or “gays.” (That is, by the way, commented upon both in my tags of the original post, and many people have remarked upon the similarities.) Instead of thinking about someone using it casually in a conversation, think about people saying “The Jew is ruining America.” The second is a pretty gross use and if it doesn’t sound wrong to you to use the word jew like that, I honestly don’t know what to tell you. Compare to “…They show the many shapes the Jew assumes … They show the Jew for what he really is: The Devil in human form,” from Nazi propaganda. So “jew” ESPECIALLY “the jew” can be used to create a stereotype/representation of all jewish people and aids in saying jews are jewish people, because they aren’t people at all.

Here i’ve commented on the fact that with the word k*ke no longer really in use and jew has become the word of choice for anti-semites. Again, it’s also used by a great many other people. But when using or hearing the word, we have to think critically about who is using it, how they’re using it, their intentions, and why they’re using it over “jewish people.” I’m wary of anyone who never uses the term “jewish people” because I naturally fluctuate between saying “jews” and “jewish people.” I’m wary because I question why “jewish person” doesn’t seem to be in their vocabulary. Do you know that kind of guy who constantly says “females” instead of “women” and makes you a little uncomfortable? It’s a little bit like that.

Here I’ve also talked about the use of jews and how it differs from muslims and christians. I think another big thing people don’t think about is Jewishness and its relation to race. Comparing it to other religions falls a little flat because it doesn’t take into account that dimension. Again, compare “jews” to “blacks.” Japanese is an adjective and only a noun when naming the language itself. If you shorten Japanese down into a noun describing a person, it becomes a slur. Jew is not as extreme as that example, but consider the angle of jewishness as a race rather than a religion.

Sorry this is so long whoops! But hopefully that’s some food for thought.

also – and this is totally my own thoughts and ymmv – context matters. it’s kind of like that old joke about how a jewish person asking “are there any jews around?” is way different from a non-jewish person asking if there are any jews around–your reaction is going to be different. the vibe and feeling i get from a jewish person saying “we jews love a good discussion, amirite?” is humor and solidarity and amused self-deprecation (because…lbr, we do love some enthusiastic debate about like…literally nothing. Bagel Discourse is proof of that), whereas a non-jew saying “you jews love a good discussion, amirite?” would make me feel uncomfortable and stereotyped. so while the word itself is steeped in history, the context of who is using it also matters.

$0.02 from a very sleepy professional jew who probably hasn’t had enough coffee to be jumping in on the Discourse but like…we do love a good Discussion.

claroquequiza:

blackfairypresident:

i have no issue with atheism as a concept but if you mock people who rely on their god to help them get through hard times, you are trash and you are not nearly as intelligent as you think you are

By the same token, religion can be good as a concept, but if your method of helping a person through hard times relies entirely on pushing your religious beliefs on them, you are also trash and you are not nearly as charitable as you think you are.

littlealiengirl:

lunaobsessions:

b4us:

A reminder to all of the mentally ill kids seeking treatment and other people new to the psych system:

If you absolutely hate going to your therapist, you have the wrong therapist

If you feel like your therapist doesn’t understand you, has misdiagnosed you, or is focusing on the wrong things, you have the wrong therapist

If your therapist is too old to understand the things you’re going through, like cyberbullying or LGBT related issues, you have the wrong therapist

If you feel like therapy isn’t working for you, YOU HAVE THE WRONG THERAPIST!

I went through five therapists before finding mine. FIVE. Sometimes it takes a while to find someone who works for you, but you do NOT have to be stuck with a therapist you don’t enjoy seeing or you don’t feel is helping you!

Also even if you like your therapist, if you feel their method is not helping you, talk to them about it! They may be able to find you someone with a different method that can help you more. I’ve had 3 different therapists and none of them were bad or wrong they just each had a different style of therapy and one worked better for me than the others.

I think even people who have been in the psych system for years need to be told this, because a lot of people feel trapped. They feel obligated to stick with the one they have or they feel all therapists are the same. (And of course after years of experience, a lot of people can end up with a lot of therapists that are bad in the same ways.)

And, unfortunately, a lot of people are trapped. Thanks to long wait lists. Thanks to therapists not taking their insurance. Thanks to not having much variety in their area. If this happens, you need to way if the therapy you’re in is hurting more than it’s helping and make a decision based on whether you think no therapy would be better than what you’re dealing with.

I’d also like to point out age rarely has anything to do with how much they understand a topic. The best therapists are willing to listen and learn, and being younger doesn’t mean they understand the shit you’re going through. A cishet 20 something whose never faced cyberbullying isn’t necessarily going to be better on those topics than someone in their 50s, especially if the one in their 50s is more open to listening to what’s going on in your life. And *especially* since lgbt+ middle aged people exist.

My best therapist was middle aged, but he actually listened to the shit I was dealing with and asked me to clarify things he didn’t understand. My case manager is in her 40s and is similar. But I’ve dealt with plenty of mental health professionals closer to my age that dismissed things because they didn’t fit their idea of how things work. Because they’re not poor, because they’re not bi, because they’re not disabled.

So willingness to listen is way more important in how much someone’s going to understand what you’re talking about. If you feel more comfy with a younger therapist than an older one, that’s fine, but don’t automatically assume that an older one is going to not get where you’re coming from and that a younger one is.

littlealiengirl:

beavis-hates-your-kink:

okay so like. something being a coping mechanism doesn’t make it healthy or exempt from criticism. drug abuse is a coping mechanism, self harm is a coping mechanism, alcohol abuse is a coping mechanism, violence is a coping mechanism, all sorts of dangerous and unhealthy things are used to cope. being used to cope does not make these things healthy or okay. there are lots of healthy coping mechanism and the evil antis y’all hate so much just want you to move to a healthier coping mechanism.

Okay, look. I want to go easy on this because op is 14, but there’s something really important that he and everyone else that thinks this post makes sense needs to understand.

If you treat addiction or self harm the way I’ve seen antis treat cope shipping, you’re going to do more harm than good.

I don’t cope ship, so I can’t really make a comparison out of this, but since op already has… I’ve self harmed for almost seventeen years. I’m well aware it’s not healthy. I’ve been in therapy for longer than I’ve been hurting myself. Most mental health professionals I’ve worked with over the last decade are aware that I do this.

Do you know what they do when I bring it up? They don’t rant to me about how unhealthy it is. They don’t tell me I’m a horrible person for hurting myself. They ask if I’ve taken care of the wounds. They ask if I feel unsafe. They ask me to talk about it if I’ve done it rather than being secretive about it. They ask me about my feelings around it and what I felt caused me to do it that time.

Something being not healthy does not mean the answer is berating the person who does it. Nor does making them feel guilty and pressuring them to stop. Most of the time, all you’re going to do is push them deeper into that hole. If they try to promise they’ll stop and they slip up, that’s just more guilt and crappy feelings for their brains to cite as good reasons to keep up the self destructive behavior.

You don’t personally have to be supportive of people’s self destruction, and certainly distance yourself from them if they’re hurting you, but if you’re aggressive about how bad it is that they’re hurting themselves, you’re not going to make them stop doing it, you’re just going to give them more reasons to keep destroying themselves.

nihilisticspace:

i’ve said this a million times but i’ll say it again for the abled people who still dont get it: you 👏don’t 👏"overcome" 👏 disability 👏 it’s an identity – you learn to embrace. He STILL has cerebral palsy. He’s STILL disabled.

The only extra challenges he faced are due to the fact that our society is still inherently ableist and inaccessible. Nothing to do with his physical condition.

withasmoothroundstone:

slashmarks:

glumshoe:

acrylicmeme:

glumshoe:

glumshoe:

Binding is not safe. Long term, it is detrimental to your physical health. While the social and psychological benefits might outweigh the physical risks for many people, the choice to bind should be made with the understanding that the risks cannot be eliminated even with great care to ensure good fit and avoid overuse. Tightly compressing a large part of your body with many complex skeletal and muscular connections on a regular basis damages your body over time. Take off-days, wear the proper size from reputable makers, don’t sleep or exercise in them, and take them off as often as possible – all good advice that you absolutely must follow to be as safe as possible, but it’s impossible to guarantee that there will not be complications.

People tend to downplay the physical risks of binding because the payoff for self-confidence can be so profound. But seriously – even responsible binding is likely to cause complications ranging from sharp pains, nerve damage, dramatically decreased lung capacity, fluid buildup, skin issues, and back injury. Do not take it lightly just because it’s a piece of clothing that can be removed and does not need a doctor’s approval or informed consent to use.

If you must bind, be gentle with yourself. On your off-time, or if you choose not to bind at all, puffer vests are your new best friends. Seriously. Get your Marty McFly on. Not your style? Your loss, you unfashionable fool, but scarves, loose-fitting button-downs, and bomber jackets can help as well.

Okay shut the fuck up.

If it’s a decision between hurting myself but feeling confident, or killing myself because I don’t feel like I belong in my own body, I think I’d choose the former.

That’s your prerogative. I never told anyone NOT to wear a binder. However, it’s a major medical decision, and minimizing or dismissing the very real and common side-effects is not good for anyone, especially young people just beginning to transition. Like I said, sometimes the psychological benefits outweigh the physical costs – if not wearing a binder makes you suicidal, then clearly continuing to wear a binder is the correct decision for you.

The problem lies in presenting binders as a miracle solution that everyone can and should try if they are distressed by the appearance of their chest, or that only “incorrect” binding (as with ace bandages) poses any dangers. Some people may develop complications that make it impossible for them to continue binding. It is vitally important that people are aware of the potential harm before they begin and are able to make informed decisions by weighing their own priorities and exploring alternatives.

Unlike surgery or hormones, binders are not medically regulated and don’t require you to understand what you’re getting into. That means we have to look after each other, and in this case, that means being honest about safety.

I would also really appreciate if we worked on respecting people who can’t bind anymore because of complications, and not treating them as not “really” trans or continuing to use their assigned gender to refer to them.

Like, it’s an issue with gatekeepers, but it’s also an issue within the trans community.

To add to the last remark: Assuming that people who can’t bind for medical reasons would bind (even if life-threatening) if they were really “trans enough”. Assuming there’s only one way that trans people feel about their bodies, that this way never changes over time and can’t ever be changed in any way by anyone, and that those who have (or can behave as if they have) the most agony around their bodies are the most genuinely trans people… all of these assumptions are false and harm a lot of trans people both directly and indirectly. Some of them are specific to assumptions around transness while some of them have ties to the way people think about membership in oppressed groups in general (even groups where dysphoria isn’t considered an integral part of their identity, seem to have a thing where the most genuine group membership is asserted by showing the most signs of severe suffering in a public way). That’s the other thing, not everyone is public about how we feel about our bodies, assuming you know how we eel on that basis isn’t cool. Assuming there’s only one “real” way trans people feel about their bodies is also not cool. These are responses to things I’ve seen over the past 15 years or so, not just things on this thread or something. Also there’s trans people and gender-atypical people who don’t think about the world through the same concepts that the mainstream trans community uses to describe both transness and gender in general and that’s not well-known and certainly not well-respected. Why people have to always form hierarchies like this is anyone’s guess.