fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2442 ]

[ SECRET POST #2442 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i was born in the 80s so i've been around for a lot of queer advancement as well. it's well accounted that gay people, bi people, people of all identities played roles in this advancement. but to paint it as a solely bisexual achievement is objectively wrong.

But... he wasn't?

Also... born in the 80's? Are you shitting me

I too was born in the eighties! You know what I am?

FUCKING YOUNG

so? we're talking about 80s-90s history. someone asked if i was a part of that history. i am. you're being really dense if you can't see how my answer applied to the question.

You were at oldest a child in the 1980s. This is likely also true for the 1990s.

Look. I study history at the phD level. By which I mean I go into archives, go to conferences, and all that. I'm not trying to lord that over you, I'm just saying that I know the general standards of the discipline because otherwise I get yelled at.

We'd never go to you for an authoritative oral account of 1980s queer history because you're too fucking young to have experienced it in a meaningful sense.

I never thought I'd actually say this but check your damn privilege, this isn't something you can be an authority on in this context. All CB is arguing is that bisexuals were there. You're trying to erase them.

Edited 2013-09-10 03:17 (UTC)

you're right, i was a child in the 80s. i never marched or rioted or faced that degree of violence until later decades. i made it clear earlier that i was not speaking from personal experience for some of this history, even if i did experience it. i certainly didn't experience it in the way an adult would have. but if i have experience in the bisexual community and its accomplishments, it would make sense for my accounts to be inaccurate regarding the influence bisexual people had on the whole of the queer movement because i would be glorifying bisexual advancement without giving proper regards to the accomplishments of other queer people. saying that bisexual people redefined what it means to be queer entirely on their own is not an accurate account of history. of course i am going to hold bias. that's one reason why historical records are so important.

eta: the other person was not merely stating bisexuals were there, they are stating that they, and they alone, redefined what it means to be queer. they retook those labels solely on their own, is what i got out of that response. that is why i reminded them that gay people had just as much a role, if not more so, in the reclaiming of slurs, definitions, labels, et cetera.

Edited 2013-09-10 03:26 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it to CB to respond to this in depth, but thanks for responding to me on this. I disagree with you on what CB is doing, but I appreciate your explanation.

eta: the other person was not merely stating bisexuals were there, they are stating that they, and they alone, redefined what it means to be queer.

Lying about things said on the same page makes you an especially bad liar.

ok but that is pretty much precisely what you said:
"You DO NOT get to erase our work and the privilege of reclaimed 'gender' and reclaimed 'queer.'" who is "we" here? certainly not all queer people, since if that was the case you would not have felt the need to ostracise me as you did. so from what i gathered from this comment, you were referring solely to bisexual people, lauding the accomplishments of the queer community as those made solely by bisexual-identifying people, which is really obviously not the case. if i am wrong in your meaning here then i apologise, it was not with the intent to mislead or lie to people. i am just taking your commentary at face value. your wording has not been the most concise and i made it evident a few times that this is what i was getting out of your implications. it doesn't help your case that it was several comments later until you corrected me (by accusing me of intentionally "lying," no less).

Edited 2013-09-10 15:07 (UTC)

who is "we" here? certainly not all queer people, since if that was the case you would not have felt the need to ostracise me as you did.

"We," meaning "the activist queers who were involved in that process." Which included a fair number of people under the bisexual umbrella, many of whom at the time were trans*, non-binary, and gender-nonconforming, and genderqueer ourselves.

if i am wrong in your meaning here then i apologise, it was not with the intent to mislead or lie to people.

You're wrong.

(Anonymous) - 2013-09-11 23:15 (UTC) - Expand

Because it was probably at bare minimum 95 before you were involved in jack shit. And I'm gonna be it was probably more like 2000-something.

well you are wrong. i'm not sure what else to tell you.

I imagine you fighting the good fight in the 80's largely consisted of this guy stomping on opressive evil fungi

you really have no place in this discussion and it is not taking place for your amusement. i have struggled for decades over my identity and have watched others do the same. i will not push aside the accomplishment of gay people. queer history has been dictated and written by people of all queer identities.

Internal struggle does not reflect being part of a movement. You talk as if you are an authoritative voice of the movement. You are an interested party who's read some stuff and then decided he knew everything there was to know. which apparently included a whole lot of negative thoughts on bisexuals.

And anybody can call anybody on bullshit. Don't matter what I like to kiss.

i am not an authoritative voice on the movement and few people are. but my inclusion goes well beyond just ~reading some stuff and trying to meddle where i don't belong or whatever. such as it is i happen to think i have far more a place to discuss the matter than you do, for instance.

It's a flawed argument. Probably one that comes logically from personal feelings, but it is.

My sexual attractions and yours have no bearing on who's right, wrong, or whatever in between.

It might be the case if I attempted to argue from a perspective that was not mine. I have not. Chard put it more eloquently above but you've basically said somebody who claimed to be a part of the movement that you simply were not a part of at the time was wrong. to me, it seems like you said it with an authority I don't think you had. Perhaps you'd respect my argument more if I wasn't a straight guy with predominately masculine leanings, but that doesn't really change my argument at all. I never said you "didn't belong." But I did say you weren't there. Because you weren't. Being around physically alive at the time is not the same thing.

Obviously I disagree with you quite a bit about your perception of what cbrachyrhynchos was saying. He says he was there. If we assume that's true (which I am), that doesn't magically mean his word is law on the subject either. But you're saying "no, your group didn't do this, maybe they helped a little, but THIS group REALLY did it!" seems like the sort of matter you can't speak from the strongest position on yourself.

Take the last word if you like. Webcomics have updated and that's more interesting to me now.

Edited 2013-09-10 03:51 (UTC)

it's not that i think your thoughts are wrong. i just think it is wrong for you to be expressing those thoughts in a discussion about issues that do not, will not and have never affected you on a personal level.

i am also not saying that gay people can take credit for that which bisexual people accomplished. but it is not correct/accurate in any way to credit bisexual people for the entire overhaul of queer advancement, which is what i was getting out of the other person's post regarding that matter. it would be wrong of me to erase the accomplishments of bisexual people, which is why i' so irked it seemed like that was being done to gay folks.

you seem to think i don't have appropriate authority to be talking about this issue despite saying above that you don't think it matters.

eta: it wasn't my intention to take the last word but whatever.

Edited 2013-09-10 03:54 (UTC)

He's in a long term relationship with a bisexual and was the first one in her life who told her she wasn't confused, a pervert, or otherwise weird. Before that she hated herself for it. That earned some points.

that's great, you can go make him a bunch of ally cookies for all i care, but his relationship with you is not the same thing.

Well no, it isn't.

But you're claiming he doesn't have the right to talk in a public forum on a topic he actually does care about, and you picked a pretty late point to say it.

I'm not defending the guy any more than that, but I hope you know you're just digging the hole deeper the further this goes.

(no subject)

saku - 2013-09-10 04:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

chardmonster - 2013-09-10 04:35 (UTC) - Expand

I had intended to leave and this time I will.

It doesn't matter that you talk about it. But it does matter when you position yourself as the fact keeper. I never said you didn't have the authority to talk about something, I said you shouldn't talk about it like you have that authority. There's a difference.

More then that though, wrong? Wrong for me to discuss an issue you brought up in a public forum? Nope. This is not some lgbt specic "safe space" designed for a specific group.

This is fucking fandom!secrets. It's for fandom discussion. Any discussion on this board that hasn't been frozen is one that can be commented on by anybody with a means to put text in the comment box. Just because it's not personal doesn't transform this discussion into something I did that was wrong. "your thoughts aren't wrong, but you can't speak them?" Fuck that and fuck you for saying so.

Finally, this is one of the oldest stupidest cards ever played. Not quite ad hominem but flirting with it. You disappointed me in using it. Now I'm done for real.

Edited 2013-09-10 04:22 (UTC)

just because you have a right to voice your opinion on the matter doesn't mean i am going to find it appropriate or valuable (bc frankly i don't care how you feel about lgbt issues as long as you aren't harming me in the process). so yeah to me your thoughts on the subject are given from looking in, rather than being in, the issue directly. that's pretty gutsy of you to do while at the same time telling me that my not being "involved" enough for you in issues that actually affect me somehow knocks my validity down a peg. you can involve yourself as you so please in lgbt issues but you can log off the computer and go back to not being oppressed or discriminated against for your gender/sexual identity, so you've really no stake in this discussion, and it's going to affect the worth of your thoughts because you don't have to apply them to your actual life. stop feigning offense for getting the longer end of the stick in life, i don't care.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only