[ SECRET POST #3517 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3517 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06. [repeat]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 58 secrets from Secret Submission Post #503.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that those are stupid, harmful practices; I'm not entirely convinced that "queer theory" is the most specific term for them but fair enough.

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

This is the outgrowth of queer theory, though. And if you try to point out how ludicrous it is you get screamed at and called a kink-shaming acephobic biphobic monosexual TERF, or whatever other buzzwords are currently being used to shut down anyone who dissents from prevailing internet SJW doctrine.

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

Would you mind talking a little more about this stuff is a development of queer theory? What's the chain of logic? That's the part I'm just not sure I'm understanding.

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, so my understanding of this is that the idea of "queer" as an identity, and by extension the idea of a "queer" community, comes from a desire to make LGBT politics more inclusive, right? To give a widely recognized identity to people who are marginalized for their sexual identity or gender performance but perhaps don't fit neatly into the categories of L, G, B, or T, and to not alienate people who do fit into one of those categories but feel uncomfortable identifying as such for one reason or another, and to include those who are closeted or still in the process figuring things out. It's a noble idea, but unfortunately it has resulted in a slippery slope.

"X is considered queer because X is a trait for which people are oppressed under patriarchy and heteronormativity, X is kind of sort of related to Y (or more often has been erroneously conflated with Y in popular culture), therefore Y is queer!"

This is the sort of logic I see people using to justify pedophilia apologism. It is the sort of logic that leads sex-positive feminists to claim that being "kinky" makes one just as oppressed by society as being gay or trans. Ignoring that there is a lot more to the oppression of LGBT people than just "having sexual desires that puritans wouldn't approve of."

Another problem comes from usage of the word "queer" itself. Its a slur. Its a slur that some would argue has been reclaimed, but its still a slur. As the popular definition of what is "queer" expands, what we end up with is a huge contingent of straight people identifying as "queer" when it is inappropriate and disrespectful for them to do so. You cannot reclaim a slur that never would have been used against you in the first place.

Furthermore, imposing the idea of a "queer" identity and "queer" community onto those of us who do NOT want to reclaim that slur for ourselves is also disrespectful. Imagine if a fringe group of women decided that from now on women should not be called women, we should be called "bitches", because there are some women who want to reclaim the word bitch and "include" women who feel uncomfortable being called women, as well as men who identify as "bitches". Imagine that the media latched on to this and started collectively referring to all women, as well as some sub-sets of men, as bitches, and that this increased the pressure for women to self-identify as bitches. You can see how that'd piss off a lot of people, can't you? Well, that's exactly how many LGBT people feel about mainstream media lumping us all into this ill-defined, misappropriated concept of "queer".

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

Queer wasn't always a slur. Gay people decided it was a slur because they didn't like bisexual and trans people including themselves in their community by using it for themselves. The fact that straight people had started using it as an insult made it easier for gay people to point and say "See, it's a slur." Which you could see was ridiculous because straight people were also using "gay" as an insult, but that never became a slur.

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

q*eer was a slur before it was a self identifier, you sound like a tumblr idiot

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

"Queer wasn't always a slur."

Try saying that to any LGBT person over the age of thirty. Best case scenario, they laugh in your face. Worst case scenario, they put their fist in your face.

I understand that being ignorant of history is very common and I won't judge you for that, but I really think you ought to make sure you know what you're talking about before you decide to weigh in on contentious topics such as this.

Re: political pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

So - correct me if I'm wrong here - it feels like most of your issues boil down to the word queer itself. First, the claims about who "counts" as queer that are (in your argument) implicit in the use of the word; second, in the history of the word which makes it unacceptable to you.