[ SECRET POST #2442 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2442 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #349.
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

[saku]

then i would fault "bisexuality" as a term for not only being misleading but apparently pandering to the many bisexuals who offensively do buy into the binary, which is an old, outdated and oppressive system. unfortunately through my experience i have reason to believe you are in the minority, though i will do as you suggest and look for other bisexuals to surround myself with.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

You identified yourself as genderqueer. Gender + queer. It don't get any more binary than that. So no, you don't get the privilege of redefining gender and queer to meet your needs, and then erasing the way that we reclaimed and redefined bisexuality.

[saku]

the fuck??? you literally have no clue what you're talking about, do you? genderqueer is a label referring to those who exist outside of the gender binary/nonbinary individuals. you are being offensive and gross. if you want to complain about this shit then you may want to take a step back and consider some deep introspection, not just for yourself but for the bisexual community as a whole.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

genderqueer is a label referring to those who exist outside of the gender binary/nonbinary individuals.

Of course. Here's the thing. WE reclaimed and redefined both genderqueer and bisexual back in the 80s and 90s. I know. I was there when we did it. You DO NOT get to erase our work and the privilege of reclaimed "gender" and reclaimed "queer."

You DO NOT get to single out "bisexual" for censure and ignore the fact that the entire language was reclaimed from the gender binary.

You DO NOT get to attack the bisexual community for adopting definitions that are inclusive of non-binary, fluid, and queer sexualities. And honestly, why would you?

[saku]

so your last response makes no sense then. you tried to claim "genderqueer" is somehow binary, and now you're saying you agree with me that it's not. you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

bisexuals are erasing their own "work" by adhering stubbornly to an outdated and apparently misleading label. further, genderqueer identities are not inherently connected to a bisexual identity. if anything they stray from it because there are still binary implications behind the bisexual label, even if many bisexuals are considerate of individuals outside the binary.

you as a bisexual are also taking a lot of credit for work done primarily by homosexual people. bisexuals did not redefine the concept of gender and did not reclaim queer. that was primarily the work of gay people even if bisexual people helped.

you seem to be claiming that you and i have similar sexualities and yet in the same breath you are trying to distance that by saying i apparently don't have a "right" to "erase" your work (read: primarily the work of homosexual people). genderfluid and genderqueer people had just as much influence as any other queer people in reworking society's views on lgbtq issues.

i will stop "attacking" the bisexual community when more of you do adopt a more inclusive definition.

[thene]

bisexuals are erasing their own "work" by adhering stubbornly to an outdated and apparently misleading label.

No dude, not abandoning my sexual identifier because some other people decided I was 'outdated'.

[saku]

then don't act surprised when people assume that you, like many bisexual-identifying people, are phobic of, or disinterested in, people who fall outside of the gender binary. i also hope you aren't one of those people who think pansexuality is an unnecessary term, particularly given your response to the suggestion that you reconsider your own identifier.

[thene]

Assuming that bisexual people - not straight people, not gay people, just bi people - are transphobic, solely on account of our identity, not based on any evidence or behaviour, is biphobic. Why would I change my identifier in response to biphobia? The biphobia isn't going to go away just because I use a different word.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't then. What everyone else is telling you is that other people are going to assume certain things about you when you use the identifier. Many people who identify using the same word, are not going to mean the same thing as you when they use it.

This is because the generally accepted definition of bisexual has changed over the years, as all language does.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Don't then. What everyone else is telling you is that other people are going to assume certain things about you when you use the identifier.

Yes, and most of them are ignorant and/or bigots.

NO, YOU MUST

[chardmonster]

YOU MUST

Futuresex

http://culturevisuelle.org/corazonada/files/2010/05/1futuresex3.jpg

Re: NO, YOU MUST

[thene]

oh wow, if I could get a hold of one of those hand-bra-things i might even start wearing bras

[cbrachyrhynchos]

you tried to claim "genderqueer" is somehow binary, and now you're saying you agree with me that it's not. you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

Gender and queer are binary by the same standard your using to define bisexuality. You don't get to use a 21st century definition for the former, and insist on a 1950s definition for the latter.

Especially when you're told that the 1950s definition is offensive.

bisexuals are erasing their own "work" by adhering stubbornly to an outdated and apparently misleading label.

It's only misleading if you are refusing to listen to what we have to say about ourselves.

if anything they stray from it because there are still binary implications behind the bisexual label,...

Only if you are refusing to listen to what we have to say about ourselves.

i will stop "attacking" the bisexual community when more of you do adopt a more inclusive definition.

How many support groups, how many leading activists, how many faqs, how many anthologies, how many periodicals, how many online communities need to adopt the inclusive definition here? Because as far as I can tell, all of them do.

[(Anonymous)]

How many support groups, how many leading activists, how many faqs, how many anthologies, how many periodicals, how many online communities need to adopt the inclusive definition here? Because as far as I can tell, all of them do.

None. What you need to do is convince the ordinary and even possibly bisexual Joe, Jane, and Jaime Schmo that bisexuality is inclusive, because they don't use it that way and make up 99% of the population

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, you have a chicken and egg problem in that we're expected to convince everyone of a big-tent bisexuality while you attack us for expressing a big-tent bisexuality.

[saku]

genderqueer as a label is used to define people who fall outside the gender binary, i don't get what's so confusing or objectionable about this. like i don't even know what you're trying to say about it except that you somehow agree and disagree at the same time and also think i don't have a right to use the word somehow??? is that it?

and again, i am listening to what you and others have to say. i have acknowledged that you don't adhere to the gender binary. but once again i have to point out that you are not an accurate representative for the bisexual community, because many of them DO adhere to the gender binary, and have made the distinction between bisexuality and pansexuality necessary in the first place. you have them to thank for that, not people like yourself or people like me who do opt to use the pansexual label.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

genderqueer as a label is used to define people who fall outside the gender binary, i don't get what's so confusing or objectionable about this.

I didn't say it was objectionable. What I called objectionable was your insistence that we use a 21st century queer definition of genderqueer and a 1950s definition of bisexual that we've repeatedly rejected and called offensive.

...i don't have a right to use the word somehow???

Well sure, if you're going there....

If you're not ___, you don't get to define ___ for ___. You don't get to define bisexuality for the bisexual community.

i have acknowledged that you don't adhere to the gender binary. but once again i have to point out that you are not an accurate representative for the bisexual community, because many of them DO adhere to the gender binary, and have made the distinction between bisexuality and pansexuality necessary in the first place.

Well no. The current wave of pansexual people did. Old cranky queeny pansexual people like myself were more than comfortable with the idea of multiple identifiers because of reasons rooted in queer theory. To put it simply, the three-category model is an artifact of the existence of anti-bisexual prejudice, which in turn is rooted in the gender binary (which we saw as fallacious) and heterosexism. Sexuality is inherently qualitative and descriptive, not quantitative and categorical.

The NeoPansexual crowd are advancing an argument that's not only biphobic, it's transphobic (fetishing trans* and ignoring the fact that many do fit within the gender binary), and anti-queer (in posing discrete sexual categories) as well.

da

[(Anonymous)]

also, 'gender', 'queer' and 'genderqueer' are three different words with three different definitions. the latter is not only extremely recent in the terms you're using, but has also never been binary. ever.

Re: da

[cbrachyrhynchos]

You don't get to pick nits about the etymology of one, and not unpack the etymology of everything else as well. (Including trans- and cis-, which are just as binary as hetero- and homo-.)

Never mind that the etymology of "bisexual" wasn't ever "both cis men and cis women" (except perhaps in the mouth of Dr. Bones McCoy in talking about Tribbles.) It was "both heterosexual and homosexual."

[insanenoodlyguy]

I won't lie, me and Chard were doing a dramatic reading of this to amuse ourselves (don't worry, we aren't putting it up on vocaroo).

I was reading Cbrachyrhynchos with my best aquaman voice (it's decent) and Chardmonster, because all she can do is a southern accent, did you as My Little Ponies Applejack (you kept replacing words with apple then correcting yourself)

But then you had to be shitty and ruin the funny. Way to go.

Also Cbrachyrhynchos, two things:

One: Your icon is awesome

Two: how the fuck do you say your name.

[saku]

you are the last person i care about appeasing in this cesspool of a community.

[insanenoodlyguy]

And yet, if I'm going out of my way to note that your not even funny anymore, that should be a hint that you've hit rock bottom.

[chardmonster]

So let me get this straight.

you as a bisexual are also taking a lot of credit for work done primarily by homosexual people. bisexuals did not redefine the concept of gender and did not reclaim queer. that was primarily the work of gay people even if bisexual people helped.

You're talking down to someone who was actually there about this shit? And you're trying to play off some kind of bullshit orientation hierarchy to do it?

You're coming off as an asshole. Largely because you're acting like an asshole.

[saku]

i'm correcting a person based on their own flawed account of queer history and their erasure of homosexual progress in these matters. if that makes me look like an asshole to you (of all people, at that) then that's great, i don't care.