anonymous asked:

How do you feel about rhetoric discoursers are spewing about "the LGBT isn't for people who feel broken, have hurt feelings, were raped, bullied, harassed, etc. The LGBT is only for SGA + trans folk" like... idk but that seems really... cringey?

It’s super cringey, because it masks several terrible arguments under a better one.

The firt half is correct. I mean, I will support all of those categories of people, but… for example, mentally ill COGAP people? Are still outsiders, no matter how broken they feel or how much they’ve been abused. COGAP rape victims? Still outsiders.

But it elides something important: That the a-spec people trotting out all these incidents of abuse and harassment and rape and bullying and feeling broken? Are doing it in response to specific demands from the discourse brigade. They’re not saying “We’ve been abused in these ways so we belong.” They’re saying “We are marginalized for our orientation, so we belong,” and then the discourse brigade is saying “Prove it.” So they tell stories about the horrible things that happen to them because of their orientation. And it doesn’t make a difference, because the discourse brigade isn’t actually weighing the merits of inclusion. It’s just looking for the magic bullet that makes it okay to hate a-spec people and use them as the requisite Sacrifice To Respectability Politics.

The second half of that is also pure trash on several levels. As we’ve established, SGA is a right-wing Christian hate term, and has been in use as such since at least October of 1995. And the community has never particularly been “for” trans people. And it’s gone through several redefinitions, from “gay” to “gay and lesbian” to “GLB” to “GLBT” to “LGBT” to “LGBTQIAP+” to “We need a better solution than the alphabet soup.” And the bi community has explicitly used a definition that does not require being attracted to your own gender for at least 20 years now.

The community is for people who are marginalized for their failure to conform to society’s expectations regarding sexuality and gender. That is the only definition that coherently includes everybody who has historically been part of the community and excludes those who historically have not been.

Once you frame it that way, the question is very obviously not “Why should we include a-spec people?” but “Why should we exclude them?”

A friend of mine recently pointed out something interesting about the way axes of oppression work. They elevate an in-group over an out-group, consistently. Racism elevates people who are white over people who are not white. Sexism elevates people who are men over people who are not men. Cissexism elevates people who are cis over people who are not cis. But suddenly were’ supposed to believe that heterosexism elevates people who are not gay over people who are gay? Why?

anonymous asked:

help i just made pancakes and i burnt them slightly, and now im trying to make look better by putting fancy slices of butter on it but the butters frozen help me

i think that’s a fairly accurate representation of your life rn