Queerness. Photography. Glitter. Cute things. Sex-positivity. Social justice. Sexual innuendos. Rambling.
The world needed love and a steady hand.
I identify as bisexual. Sometimes I’ll use pansexual if I’m around people that I know are lgtbq savvy and would understand the word, because I feel that that fits as well. However, I honestly think that the term bisexual, given its history, accurately fits and explains that I am attracted to people across the entire gender spectrum/with a variety of gender presentations. And it’s far more accessible and well-known than pansexual is at the moment.
So when people say, “I’m pansexual, it’s a more inclusive term than bisexual,” and grin at me like they’ve shat out a rainbow, I’m unimpressed.
When someone says, “I would NEVER identify as bisexual, I’m queer, that’s a political stance,” I’m a bit miffed.
Is my identity not a political stance? Because I’m pretty sure it is. Identifying as bisexual and being a woman flies in the face of slut-shamers and assholes who would try to dictate my identity one way or the other. It’s non-monosexual and confuses the shit out of everyone.
My identity is just as valid as yours. I more than appreciate that identifying as queer or pansexual is a healing and awesome act. However, please don’t take a giant dump on my identity while you do so!
studying for finals
ELMO OH MY GOD ARE YOU OKAY?
Wah?
WHY IS IT FUNNY?
LMAO FUCK
I feel like I just watched Elmo die a horrible death.
Saw this on facebook, amazing.
“ONE POLITICAL LESBIAN’S STRUGGLE AGAINST THE TRANS INVASION”
SORRY I CAN’T TAKE CAPS LOCK OFF NOT FOR THISTOO PERFECT NOT TO INSTAREBLOG
benedict-cumberbatchs-cheekbones:
forever reblog. dat elbow
The second panel. What a fucking SLUT. Respect yourselves, women!11!!! How else can you expect a guy to ever respect you?
her shoulders. they’re… bare.
She’s obviously a brazen whore, revealing her forearms like that.
Why is she carrying something else other than a Bible? Tsk tsk.
guys oh my god why are you reblogging something like this my eYES SERIOUSLY I DIDNT WANT TO SEE THAT TAG THIS SHIT
Hey guys don’t complain about these women
I mean just look at how it is now
the joke just flew over your goddamn head
Oh god, this made me die a little.
I have never seen someone miss a joke this obvious that thoroughly. Wonderful.
(Source: jerrymuffinbutt, via blackenedbutterfly)
Beth Ditto (via prayforprada)
Seriously Beth. I LOVE YOU
(via voguefemme)
(Source: allyouladiespopyopussylikedis, via cassket)
Mx. does not like penises and has made the assumption that the trans* woman (let’s call her Ms.) has a vagina. The question is, does Ms. need to disclose that she has a penis, or does Mx. need to disclose that ze doesn’t like penises? Well, let’s consider both options:
- If Ms. discloses, Mx. may respond violently. Look up “transgender woman murdered” in Google, (ENORMOUS TRIGGER WARNING IF YOU DO THIS) to see what kinds of violence she risks.
- If Mx. discloses, ze risks hurt feelings and awkwardness.
Hm, who should disclose?
If you say that Ms. should disclose, knowing the above, you are a bigot.
If you say that Mx. should disclose, knowing the above, you might be a decent human being.
HEY ALLIES what would you say
This shouldn’t even have to be a question.
(via blackenedbutterfly)
This weekend, the New York Times published an extremely exploitative article about a transgender woman who had died in a fire. The article, about Lorena Escalera, only mentions that she was killed in a fire after telling readers that she was “curvaceous,” that she “drew admiring glances” in her “gritty Brooklyn neighborhood,” that she “was known to invite men for visits to her apartment,” that Lorena was “called Lorena” (as opposed to saying she was “named Lorena” or that she simply was Lorena) and that she “brought two men to her apartment” sometime between late Friday night and early Saturday morning.
The article by Al Baker and Nate Schweber treats Escalera completely disrespectfully, later describing a pile of debris outside the burned apartment which “contained many colorful items. Among them were wigs, women’s shoes, coins from around the world, makeup, hair spray, handbags, a shopping bag from Spandex House, a red feather boa and a pamphlet on how to quit smoking.”
Take the word “transgender” out of the equation.
Would the New York Times ever describe a woman who is not transgender, who had died in a fire, as “curvaceous” - in the first sentence, no less? Would it carefully note that her apartment contained makeup and “women’s shoes?” Would it say that she was “called” whatever her name was - especially if police later identified her by that name?
Janet Mock and other noted leaders in the trans advocacy movement have been speaking out about this article online. Thank you to all of you who submitted incident reports about this article, or alerted us to it through Twitter. We are reaching out to the Times to discuss the many incident reports we received, and to ensure that exploitative pieces like this don’t get printed in the future.
(Source: transfeminism, via blackenedbutterfly)
(via cassket)
