people who need to come out of the closet

justjasper:

• nobody unless they damn well want to now shut your mouth

tchomannequin:

Runnin - Adam Lambert

fuckyeahgirlcrush:

Mythbusters seriously needs to do an episode to see if two people could actually fit on that goddamn door without flipping it or sinking it so that we can finally put this issue to bed after fifteen years. 

“Bisexual” is not oppressive, can we talk about biphobia and straight privilege? and other thoughts on bisexuality

mikroblogolas:

This topic has been discussed to death, and yet it continually comes up in tumblr discussion. So let me establish once and for all (I swear, I will never discuss this again) that “bisexual” is not an oppressive identity.

Bisexual is not binarist.

The argument that it is binarist posits that (1) bisexuality is attraction to binary-identified (sometimes people throw in “cis” too) men and women, and that (2) not being attracted to someone means you deny their gender or actively hate them. Clearly, these are both fallacies.

(1) There are many uses of the term “bisexual.” Some take the “bi” to mean “two genders” and don’t specify which. Some take it to mean “same gender and different gender.” Some take it to refer to the two different social spaces they occupy in a binarist world when they are read as straight or read as not straight based on their partner. And many people disregard the constraints of etymology and use it to mean “more than one gender.”

The language police on tumblr have a really unhealthy relationship with etymology. Don’t get me wrong — I adore etymology, and I think it’s important to critique how language reinforces prejudices. But it can only get you so far. The origins of a word do not demarcate the only ways it can be used. Almost any word that we use frequently can be picked apart to justify an argument that it should be banned from our vocabulary. (“Vocabulary,” for example, is ableist, because it is related to the Latin “vocare,” from which we have “vocal,” and who’s to say only people who can speak can use language? We shouldn’t use the word “rape” to refer to nonconsensual sex, because “rape” originally meant kidnapping, and this reinforces the idea that “real” rape involves brute physical force. And so on.)

It is suspicious that people jump on the word “bisexual” so easily, when there’s a multitude of words used frequently in SJ circles that could be branded oppressive based on a quick glance at their etymology. “Lesbian,” for example, is cultural appropriation, because, as we all know, it derives from the name of a Greek island, and, before this appropriation, people from that island were naturally called “lesbians” (and some are trying to reappropriate the term). “Feminism” connotes femininity, and as we all know not all women are feminine, not all feminine people are women, and not all feminists are women. “Straight” is homophobic, because it conflates heterosexuality with correctness, properness, and honesty; it implies that those who are not straight are “crooked”: immoral, dishonest, and improper. The “trans-” in “transgender” and “transsexual” is cissexist, because “trans-” means “across” or “beyond,” and it implies that trans people necessarily “cross” gender or occupy a space beyond the binary. However, these arguments do not dominate tumblr (yet — I hope I didn’t start anything terrible), because even though their etymology is “problematic” (and it some cases, it really is), these words have meaning and power beyond, and sometimes despite, their etymology. The question is “Does their value outweigh their harm?” They are useful terms and to discard them because someone with a Greco-Latin roots dictionary can find fault with them would be silly. And the same is true of “bisexual.”

(2) Some people do use “bisexual” to mean “men and women.” And that is OK! You have the right to be attracted to whomever you like. You are under no obligation to be attracted to any particular person or group. That is your right as a sexually autonomous human being. Identifying your attractions (or your identity!) along the binary does not make you binarist. 

If you are not attracted to non-binary people, that does not mean you hate non-binary people. One of the most harmful messages of the current trend of sex positivity is that support=sex. There are many ways of supporting people without sleeping with them. Indeed, showing your support for non-binary people/trans people/women/men/POC/whoever by sleeping with them is creepy, fetishizing, and gross. It reminds me of this meme:

[Image text: “How can I be misogynist if I love having sex with women?”]

Moving on. Biphobia is a thing.

A lot of smart people I really respect have been talking about how we need to discard the term “biphobia” because it suggests an axis of oppression in which bisexuals lose and gay/lesbian and straight people win. Obviously, such an axis is just as ridiculous as so-called “sexual privilege,” in which straight and LGBQ people wield power and privilege over straight and LGBQ asexuals alike.

So let me get this clear: I don’t mean biphobia with the checklists. Monosexism is not an actual axis of privilege/oppression. Instead, it’s the reluctant extension of a heterosexist model to gay people: Gay men are pretty much women, just confused about their gender, and lesbians are practically men, just with gender issues. Bisexuals, silly things, are just confused or way too into sex. What sluttysluts.

People who are gay or lesbian do not wield institutional power and privilege over bisexuals. However, there are widely held and firmly entrenched prejudices against bisexuality among both straight people and lesbian/gay/queer people. I like the term “biphobia” because it summarizes those prejudices in one easily recognizable word. I don’t think “-phobia” should be limited to situations of privilege–oppression — for example, “biophobia” is a very useful word, and we don’t need to write up the living things privilege checklist — but if anyone has anyone good arguments to not use the word “biphobia,” please let me know. I have heard the term described as “appropriative,” but I don’t think this is necessarily true. (Privilege checklists, yes.) We can talk about misogyny as a real thing, and yet “misandry” doesn’t automatically assume male oppression by women, unless it’s, say, an MRA using the term. (cinnamonwheel and others have been rocking the “misandry for life” tag, and I’m pretty sure they’re not MRAs.) (This is a shitty analogy, because bisexuals are not analogous to men in terms of power or privilege, but the point is that morphologically similar terms do not have to carry the same SJ framework.) I find the term “biphobia” useful, and it’s what I’m going to use until I hear a sufficiently convincing argument against “biphobia” and a decent alternative to it.

Here are some examples of what I mean when I talk about biphobia:

• The hate that reality-TV star Krisily Kennedy got on Autostraddle when she came out as bisexual
• Dismissing bi women as straight but slutty and bi men as closeted gay liars
• I attended a “queer” event by the LGBTQ group at my school, and when a guy and girl (each, as far as I know, gay) were talking to each other for too long and being too (platonically) affectionate, they were told — as a joke!!111 of course — that they’d better not “turn straight” or they wouldn’t be welcome in the group anymore
• When I wrote an article on homosexuality in high school, and in order to cut down the story to fit the space allotted, I simply deleted the section on bisexuality, because “bisexuals don’t really count” or deserve representation
• When the only Hungarian “LGBT” YouTube show includes comments like these in their “best of” video and otherwise, mention of bisexuality is completely lacking: “Bisexuals are those who can’t decide whether they like boys or girls” (offered as a definition of bisexuality); “Yes, I usually date guys” “Well, in today’s world, who knows?!” (applauded by commenters as a hilarious joke)
• When “bisexual” is the label high school kids would put on their myspace as a joke, along with “divorced” and “salary: over $200,000”
• When people who would otherwise ID as “bisexual” prefer “pansexual” and “polysexual” and “queer” and “heteroflexible” instead because “bisexual,” like “lesbian,” is a word that leaves a bad taste in your mouth

In gay people, biphobia tends to come from internalized homophobia (why would you be gay if you have the chance of being straight?) and insecurity (s/he’ll leave me for a woman/man!). It also intersects with misogyny and phallocentricism and straight people’s homophobia. But I don’t think it’s enough to simply call it the intersection of those factors and leave it at that. The way people revile the very word “bisexual” and leap to banish it to the box of oppressive terms speaks to biphobia being a phenomenon that, even though it doesn’t deserve the checklists and axes of oppression, should at least have a name, if we are to talk about it. It doesn’t have to fit the same framework as homophobia.

It’s a big problem that people who are bisexually identified (or engage in bisexual behavior) are dismissed and mocked by gay/queer/lesbian people. I honestly don’t think I need to spell out an explanation of why it’s important for spaces that call themselves “queer” or “LGBT” to be inclusive. In short, anyone who is bi (in name or behavior) is still queer and may need support as a queer person. Biphobia also makes it difficult for anyone who is gay-identified and experiencing sexual fluidity (Lisa Diamond’s research on sexual fluidity (pdf) is super interesting, btw). It also means that gay people who are in “straight” relationships for whatever reasons (family and religion are two examples) are dismissed by the queer community. Biphobia is part of a culture of identity-policing, where if you don’t adhere closely enough to the requirements delineated by the official bureau of gayness you’re out of the club.

But. If we’re going to talk about biphobia, there’s something else we need to talk about. And that’s bisexual access to straight privilege. (You don’t have to call yourself bisexual to experience this — all you need is to be read as straight, especially due to the way you and a partner are read — but it something that certainly some bisexuals experience.) I recommend this excellent article, which covers the topic better than I could: “Bisexuals and straight privilege.”

There are many bisexual people who have access to straight privilege. If you only partner with people of the gender that is socially normative for you, or if you’re in a long-term relationship with such a person, if you’re in an “opposite marriage,” you definitely benefit from heterosexual privilege. I’m not bisexual, but I was in a “straight” relationship recently, and the straight privilege was everywhere. Walking around in public together. The only time I ever tried being (discreetly) affectionate in public in Hungary with someone read as my gender, it barely took half an hour, if that, for a man to yell, “Ew, lesbians!” at us. Of the countless times my ex and I were together in public, we never got harassed once. And then there’s family. My relatives knowing — and approving. My mother sending him presents. My father offering me advice on “the battle of the sexes” (his phrasing and horrible gender essentialism made me scoff in disgust, leading him to get very hurt, and we ended up in a fight, as always — but it was quite different than the epic disowning that would have ensued had I ever gone to him with “girl trouble”).

There’s a myth I saw going around tumblr earlier: Passing privilege is not privilege. I want to dispel this immediately. Passing privilege is absolutely privilege. You may not be accessing that privilege all the time, but when you are, the privileges afforded you are real. Being invisible is shitty, but it doesn’t cancel out the privileges you gain in the meantime.

Bisexual access to straight privilege is complicated. Some people are bi and experience no homophobia for it. Others may experience just as much as, or even more than, gay- or lesbian-identified people. If you’re read as gay or queer from your appearance or gender presentation, it may not matter that you’re in a “straight” partnership when homophobes itching for violence come up to you as you walk down the street alone. If you’ve been in dozens of “straight” relationships and get kicked out of your home for your first same-sex relationship, accusations of straight privilege may not mean much to you. Laws targeting homosexuality don’t make exceptions for the bisexuals who are caught having sex or relationships with members of their own gender.

Bisexual access to straight privilege is individually conditioned, depending on your personal circumstances. How much biphobia you experience too may depend on who you are and where you are. But on a group-wide level, they both exist and need to be discussed. I’m tired of the reductionist tendencies on tumblr to either hold up biphobia as the new most oppressed group evar!!11 or dismiss it entirely.

planets-bend-between-us:

can I just voice a few unpopular opinions regarding my take on feminism?

• the idea of a damsel in distress is not anti-feminist until the need for saving becomes the sole purpose of the character. while stories of women who don’t need saving are groundbreaking and empowering, it’s, in my opinion, anti-feminist to place the character so high up on a pedestal that they will never need saving. feminism isn’t about glorifying a gender; it’s about equality. so a woman (who is defined outside of being a damsel in distress) that needs saving at some point is, therefore, not anti-feminist.

• the structure of marriage, family, and what may be viewed as the stereotypical lifestyle that follows is not anti-feminist. some women choose this lifestyle. some women want to be stay at home moms and raise a family and do household work while their husband provides financially, versus being a career woman. and there is nothing wrong with any of those choices.

• while many of us agree that slut shaming is anti-feminist, the girl who chooses not to engage in a sexual lifestyle is not anti-feminist either, unless they are participating in slut shaming themselves. some women will choose to remain abstinent, some may even choose to wait until marriage or at least until they’re in a long-term relationship to have sex. that’s perfectly acceptable. shaming them for that choice is defying feminism.

• females and female characters do not need to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, physicists, linguists, psychologists, intellectual creatures, or super heroes with super powers to be strong women. this idea in itself is anti-feminist, as it implies that anything mediocre or below is shameful. feminism is an inclusive cause, meaning that every person of every background, belief, status, orientation, and intellectual level are represented equally.

disclaimer: I don’t claim to represent everyone’s ideas of what feminism is and should be. the only person I’m representing is myself and my own opinions. and if you just happen to agree with me, that is fantastic!

In addition to John Green’s excellent point about “cause erasure”:

aimmyarrowshigh:

Crimes against humanity, international war crimes, international civil rights, and social justice are not fads.  They should not be “trendy on the internet,” and should not be something treated as The New Hot Thing.

I love seeing so many posts on my dash today, from both sides of each argument, about contraceptives, insurance equality, medical equality, Sandra Fluke, KONY 2012, the LRA, and the Invisible Children charity.  Especially from within The Hunger Games fandom, which I generally think should spend more of its time and focus on issues of social justice considering the nature of the source material, I think it’s a welcome shift to a lot of Tumblr’s general content (not counting myself out of that, obviously, because I also post a lot of really random/miscellaneous/whatever things).

But.

This same fervor happened in January for SOPA/PIPA/the e-parasite act/ACTA.  Do you know the status of any of these bills now?  Cary Sherman, the CEO of the RIAA, believes that the outcry over the SOPA bill was a “one-time thing,” and he is most likely not wrong.

Five months ago, the Occupy movement consistently crossed my dash as a major base of activism, awareness, and debate.  Do you know where the movement is focused now?  Pfizer (which also is a point of contention in the contraceptives/insurance debate due to their production of Viagra) and Bank of America are currently, and rightly, being protested for corporate corruption, and no one seems to be commenting because Occupy is no longer the “cause of the week.”

The Egyptian Revolution that everyone gave copious, and much-needed, attention a year ago… is still happening.  And people are still being hurt, and still being killed, and there is still no resolution. 

Less than a month ago, uproarious backlash against the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood for ostensibly religious/political reasons brought forward a huge surge in positive (and, okay, a lot of negative) discourse about the nature of women’s medical equality and medical rights.  When this cause instantly silenced itself — despite Komen still pinkwashing products like handguns (violence from which causes 29% of women’s deaths in the US) and donating only 24% of their money towards breast cancer research and screenings — the visible online dialogue about women’s medical rights reduced immediately to its original sources (here on tumblr, that means mainly feminism blogs).

Cue Sandra Fluke, and people are once again acting like they’ve never been so shocked and outraged at the lack of concern by the general mainstream media/public about inequalities in healthcare for women, contraceptive availability and ethos, and/or the US’ stilted and politically biased coverage of both sex and the human body as a political warzone.

WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS A MONTH AGO.

While Kony is an exceptionally horrific case, we were discussing the horror of tyrannical war criminals in third-world countries with the discussion and protest of Muammar G’addafi SIX MONTHS AGO.  Meanwhile, Libya is currently restructuring and the import of weapons into Libya is rising, and Tumblr Social Justice is fairly content not to remain aware or updated on its status.

Should something happen again in Libya, it will also bring about a week or so of uproarious shock and sudden interest in the region.  Just like the uterus, just like SOPA and PIPA and ACTA, just like everything else that Tumblr Social Justice briefly puts 110% of its energies into creating awareness for.

And of course, I do not think that anything that does raise social awareness, activism, and political curiosity, outrage, or understanding is a bad thing.

At all. 

I think that the massive pouring of actions and words and ideas about the manhunt for Joseph Kony and the eye-opening expression of his heinous crimes is hugely important and hugely positive.  If the KONY2012 campaign truly does bring people into Africa for rebuilding, or does bring about enough international awareness that wherever Kony has hidden himself, he is found, then that is an amazing thing and a true mark of the tremendous good that a free and open internet can do (see that, SOPA?).

But.

Posting gifsets of dancing children labeled “Kony! <3”?

Crimes against humanity, international war crimes, international civil rights, and social justice are not fads.  They should not be “trendy on the internet,” and should not be something treated as The New Hot Thing.

I’m personally guilty, too, of raising my reblogs of certain causes during their Week Of Fame, too — of course.  In part, that’s because that’s when information about these causes (SOPA/ACTA/PIPA/net neutrality, Egypt, Libya, Sandra Fluke, Susan G. Komen, on and on and on) is easier to find and, like the rest of Tumblr/the Western world: I live in a society of passive consumption and it really is easier to notice things when they’re being waved in front of my face than when I have to keep myself abreast.

But if, for only one week, or for only one month, people are concerned with helping child soldiers, and then they are abandoned? 

That helps no one.  That potentially makes their tragic life situations worse, because perhaps the only thing the Western mainstream considers worse than to be “invisible” is to be “passe,” an old story, one that most people consider solved.

Crimes against humanity are never “solved.”  When one treat is removed, others move into its place, and the capture of Kony will not bring about immediate peace or safety for the tens of thousands who have suffered (and continue to suffer) because of the LRA. 

Egypt has not been “solved.”

Libya has not been “solved.”

The campaign against a free and neutral internet has not been “solved.”

The integral quest for medical equality for all peoples of all incomes and all genders is not “solved.”

Treating social issues as fads or trends leads to an idea that, like trends, they are impermanent and easy to remedy.  That hurts far, far more people and ideas than it helps.

Find the causes that are permanent to you, that are immediate and integral and being handled in a responsible and sustainable manner in your eyes and to your scrutiny (ie, look into where charities’ money is really going; find out what else your spokespeople have said/done), and focus your energies into those causes for the long haul.

Don’t just reblog a few KONY2012 campaign posters and assume your role has been played and the fight against the LRA has moved a step forward.  Don’t reblog a post urging a boycott of Rush Limbaugh for calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” and then another post captioned “lol ____ is such a slutty whore.”  Don’t assume that because Tumblr has gone silent about any given cause that it has been “solved.”

If KONY2012 has moved you to a place of permanent and life-changing impetus to aid the plight of child soldiers and human trafficking in Uganda, Sudan, the DRC, and the CAR, then that is amazing and a beautiful testament to the good works that open communication and social media can do and be.

If reblogging KONY2012 seems “popular on the Tumblr Radar,” then please… at least read up on why, and decide how much you care, and at least decide whether you will still care in a month, or six months, or a year, before you proclaim your FEEEEELINGS.

Tumblr, as a whole, has had FEEEEELINGS about a LOT of things in the last year.

And really, we probably still should.  And we don’t.