[ 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

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, bisexual. But I'd say those people are ignorant of the larger history, politics, and community if they think that bisexuality doesn't include non-binary, queer, and fluid sexualities as well.

[(Anonymous)]

Would everybody who is not 100% homosexual, 100% heterosexual, or 100% asexual fall under the bisexual umbrella?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

If someone:
1) Identifies as bisexual, and
2) experiences anti-bisexual prejudice in the larger culture.

Then I'd say they fall under the big-umbrella catholic definition of bisexual.

[(Anonymous)]

1) isn't enough?

[cbrachyrhynchos]

It's not just about self-identification. Identifying as queer or pansexual (which I also do) doesn't change the fact that I experience anti-bisexual prejudice.

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't talking about you, though. I was talking about a theoretical person who identifies as bi but has not faced discrimination. Is identifying as bi not enough? You listed them separately, is all.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I think internalized biphobia is likely a thing, so a person does not necessarily need to be out to be affected by something like this whole discussion.

[insanenoodlyguy]

So... it only counts if they suffer in some way?

I've largely agreed with you on most of what you've said, but that definition... seems counterproductive on the whole. On an academic level with the present realities of the world, sure, it casts a wide net. And sure, in the event of an ideal future you'd likely allow that the definition can change I'm sure. But frankly it seems an all too convenient way for somebody to say "X isn't a real one, they haven't suffered enough!"

Edit: i'm not accusing you of this so much as saying it seems a bad definition that can lead to this thinking in general.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

It's not about me and my precious feels. By all means, if I had the utopian choice, I'd identify myself as just k___sexual and k___gendered.

But I live in a world where we just had a semiautobiographical hit TV series by a bisexual author run for a full season without dropping the b-word. I live in a world where people run studies on dicks (I kid you not) trying to confirm or deny my existence. I live in a world where Dan Savage blames me for stereotypes he helps to promulgate.

I'm not terribly interested in defining who is or is not a "real bisexual." That's another idea that we rejected back in the '90s. But since my social reality is shaped by anti-bisexual prejudice, that's the stakes we're dealing with. We're communities of resistance as much as self-identification.

[insanenoodlyguy]

Fair enough

Seriously though, how the fuck do you say your name. Tell meeee.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

CB if we're being friendly. I always mangle the latin.

[insanenoodlyguy]

BOOOO COP OUT

[chardmonster]

I suggest being careful with that in fandom communities. You're dealing with a lot of young people who are overly sensitive to criticism. If you say that being subject to prejudice is necessary, they're going to decide they have too much "privilege" to call themselves bisexual and seek another identity.

I know that sounds nuts but that's the environment we're in.

[chardmonster]

I think classifying theoretical people is lame.

Let's ask the theoretical people what they identify as, in theory.

[(Anonymous)]

2) Wait, you just implied that the prejudice in a culture can define someone (instead of just, you know, what someone really identifies as)? Really?