Queer As In Fuck You - Blog Posts

exciting entry in the "what genre is mcr" debate. he said be a faggot!!!!! (blender 2005)

awake and unafraid

Anne Tagonist in Unapologetic zine issue #1 published 1997

My ocs with their flag colors

do not repost only reblog

Omni

Haqay

my other social accs:

@Hanv-Iyxn/deviantart

@Hanv-Iyxn/artfight

i think it's time to take a page from the james flint gay agenda manifesto; stop trying to convince people that the queers are not a danger to society, and become a menace to civilisation instead. the real queer agenda should be to overthrow any and all social systems. work in tandem with other marginalised groups and set heteropatriarchy on fire. become ungovernable, ignore social norms, uplift new voices. assimilation should not have ever been the goal. queer people are different. difference is good. the real enemy is conformity. conformity is responsible for every man made horror in history. war, poverty, hate crimes, slavery, genocide, they are all made possible by the existence and desirability of a status quo. remove the desirability of normalcy and you remove the foundation for all systems of suffering. systems work because a majority of people have decided it was in their best interest to uphold them. but is it really? remove the desirability of normalcy and you have no grounds for competition. keep quiet out of fear that the system will decide you are abnormal next, and you are making sure it will. fuck civilisation, fuck normalcy, fuck the status quo.

Friendly reminder that bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and aromantic people do not experience “straight passing privilege”.

Identity erasure is not a privilege, it is oppression.

Frankly I don’t see the point in fussing over the precise gender identities of historical figures and what they would hypothetically describe themselves as were they alive today. They’re not fictional characters—they’re dead people whose opinions on a continuously evolving topic are largely unknowable, but are part of a shared history nonetheless.

For example, whether a historical figure lived secretly as a man because she was a woman in a society where that was her only option to actually do the things she wanted to do, or because he was just more comfortable that way and wanted to be recognized as a man... how can we know? How can we determine that it was not both? How can we look back through history to a world so different from ours and come to conclusions about things that are often complicated and indistinct in our own time?

I just don’t see what is accomplished by trying to sort and separate trans history from GNC history based on factors we can’t truly be certain of. In an earlier generation, I think I may have lived and presented quite differently based on the choices available to me and the ease with which I may have pursued them. The world changes so much in so many ways and I can barely make sense of myself in my own time—it seems more practical to simply say, “Ah. Relatable. I can see much of myself in the record of your life.” and leave it at that. Our history is cultural, not ancestral, and in a hundred years we may be the source of just as much confusion and consternation even if we believe ourselves clear today.

Friendly reminder that bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and aromantic people do not experience “straight passing privilege”.

Identity erasure is not a privilege, it is oppression.

Frankly I don’t see the point in fussing over the precise gender identities of historical figures and what they would hypothetically describe themselves as were they alive today. They’re not fictional characters—they’re dead people whose opinions on a continuously evolving topic are largely unknowable, but are part of a shared history nonetheless.

For example, whether a historical figure lived secretly as a man because she was a woman in a society where that was her only option to actually do the things she wanted to do, or because he was just more comfortable that way and wanted to be recognized as a man... how can we know? How can we determine that it was not both? How can we look back through history to a world so different from ours and come to conclusions about things that are often complicated and indistinct in our own time?

I just don’t see what is accomplished by trying to sort and separate trans history from GNC history based on factors we can’t truly be certain of. In an earlier generation, I think I may have lived and presented quite differently based on the choices available to me and the ease with which I may have pursued them. The world changes so much in so many ways and I can barely make sense of myself in my own time—it seems more practical to simply say, “Ah. Relatable. I can see much of myself in the record of your life.” and leave it at that. Our history is cultural, not ancestral, and in a hundred years we may be the source of just as much confusion and consternation even if we believe ourselves clear today.

do you ever think about chuck palahniuk writing “we don’t have a great war in our generation, or a great depression… the great depression is our lives” in the early 1990s as a young gay man living in america at the peak of the aids epidemic