Getting tired of these lies about the origin of the term ‘homosexual’

my reponse to this tumblr thread by @sixthhokage1@tumblr.com@sixthhokage1@tumblr.com
So this post is such a fucking trainwreck I drafted it earlier because I saw shit that I need to respond to. First of all, split attraction models predate the modern ace community and the concept of “affectional attraction” as a counterpart to “sexual attraction” is attested to by 1989. I reblogged a short post with citations about this history starting with 19th century gay rights pioneer Karl Ulrichs a couple years ago.

And then here’s the big thing I wanted to address. @theunkilling, the sheer fucking gall you have to lambaste people for not doing research about queer history and just making shit up, then going on to make some shit up. “Homosexual” was not coined as a term against us, by right-wing Christians or psychologists or anyone. It was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, a correspondent of Ulrichs’ and thought to have possibly been gay himself, in his anonymous 1869 pamphlet Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code of 14 April 1851 and Its
Reaffirmation as Paragraph 152 in the Proposed Penal Code for the North German Confederation. An Open and Professional Correspondence to His Excellency Dr. Adolph Leonhardt, Royal Prussian Minister of Justice
, in which he argued against the Prussian anti-sodomy law.

And with respect to a society such as ours today, especially in the
large and medium-sized cities – and Prussia alone has no less than 1212
cities ranging from over a hundred thousand to under six thousand inhabitants
– will we seek to preserve medieval views about sexual debauchery, will
we seek to allow the same acts in the overwhelming majority of opposite-sex
natures to go completely unpunished, while punishing them in the extraordinarily
small minority of homosexual natures harshly and even with a declaration
of loss of civil rights just like real crimes? That is not only unjust,
it is a criminal absurdity from the standpoint of our modern world view.

In further writings, Kertbeny also coined the term ‘heterosexual’. Then in 1886 Richard von Kraft-Ebing published his Psychopathia Sexualis which appropriated the term ‘homosexual’ to pathologize queer people as having a mental illness from “hereditary degeneracy”, influenced by the degeneration theory popularized by Bénédict Morel which originated in and further influenced scientific racism. It was our word first, and it was stolen from us by eugenicists and their allies.

“stop letting tumblr teach you queer history“ is fucking right, demonstrated right in the post it was said in. This shit is easy to find. At least check the basic fucking sources like Wikipedia for like five fucking seconds before spewing some misinformed ahistorical bullshit you heard from the tumblr discourse telephone.

Queer Etymology: Enby

There’s a lot of misinformation about various LGBT/Queer terms, especially when it comes to neologisms coined on social media where the origin may not be well-documented. For this post, I’m going to address the etymology of the word ‘enby’ and the misconceptions around it.

The context of this post is that within the last few months I have become aware of discussions around the term ‘enby’ and the initialism it is derived from: NB. Due to NB being an initialism also used in discussions of race to mean non-Black, some people of color have asked that people not use the initialism to mean nonbinary. A lot of people in these discussions have made the claim that the word ‘enby’ was coined by nonbinary people of color as an alternative to the initialism. This claim is false in all respects.

This September 2013 post, originally from Tumblr user revolutionator[note] is the origin of the term

i wish there was an nb equivalent to words like boys and girls

nb

enby

enbies

‘Enby’ is literally just intended as a nonbinary equivalent to ‘boy’ and ‘girl’, and the discussion of initialism collision with ‘non-Black’ came years later as far as I can tell. And as many nonbinary people have brought up, the term can be quite infantilizing and should not be used for people who don’t use it for themself.

As for the other part of the false claim, that it was coined by a person of color, I’ll let this (partially redacted for privacy on a locked account) screenshot of the coiner’s Twitter profile say all that needs to be said about that:

Twitter bio that says: "vector/nonbin/29/white. coined “enby” lol. love ghosts and my friends. バンドリーマー。ハロハピ派、かおここ推し。nb lesbian married2cat. im british i just live in america"

 


Note: The link is to a Wayback archive of a reblog by Tumblr user faunmoss from 6 years ago as of this writing in 2019. The original post itself is on a blog that Vector last posted to in 2015, with a large string of numbers as the current username and behind the post-2018 NSFW filter, which breaks links to direct posts outside the mobile app. Reblogging to drafts from mobile and checking the timestamp with Xkit shows the OP was posted on 10 September 2013:

revolutionator's post that was quoted above, with a timestamp from September 2013

My names

Gender is weird, and it makes names weird as well. Most trans people consider their birth name to be a deadname, not a correct way to address them. Most people, including trans people, only have one “real” name, and this will be their legal name. Neither of these fits me.

I’m still quite attached to the name my parents gave me, Jeff (well okay, that’s the diminutive form of my given name, but close enough). That name’s not dead, and I don’t intend to kill it. But it’s been joined by two others.

My first chosen name was Jess. When I still thought I was cis, a forum community I was part of ended up playing host to some genderbending roleplay shenanigans, and so my genderbent name was Jess. Turns out roleplaying as yourself genderbent is a good way to end up questioning your gender. When I came out as nonbinary, I decided to keep Jess(ica) as a feminine name and Jeff(rey) as a masculine one.

A couple years later I ended up wanting a neutral sounding name as well. I settled on Jay. That ended up becoming the name I use most often online now.

And then middle names. I’m the third generation on my dad’s side to have the initials JWL, so I wanted to keep that with my chosen names. First I landed on Jessica Willow. But good neutral sounding names starting with W are hard to find. For a while I was Jay Wynn Logan. I was never quite satisfied with “Wynn” though. And as a certain trans YouTuber with that as a surname has kept having controversies mostly over being exorsexist I grew outright uncomfortable with it even though my name choice had nothing to do with her. So as of last night, my full names are Jeffrey W[redacted] Logan, Jessica Willow Logan, and Jay Wren Logan. This new middle name already feels much better than Wynn ever did.

Expectations to White Knight fictional characters online, a short Twitter thread reposted

One part of modern fandom that is quite utterly *fucked* is the expectation that liking a character means you think they Can Do No Wrong and that you must Defend Their Honor Online.

If you like a villain, you have to be gunning for them to get a redemption arc and for them to have some reason that excuses their villainy. If someone doesn’t like the character you like you must prove that they are Wrong about your precious character.

And especially if a Big Name Fan says they have a negative opinion of a character, that character’s fans seem to have a need to dogpile the BNF. Or maybe they’re not a BNF, maybe they’re someone involved in the work itself.

This shit makes for reductive and vitriolic discussions, stymies interesting analysis, is toxic to the fandom as a whole, and is plain not healthy to the people acting as “white knights” for fucking fictional characters.

“If lumping people in with their oppressors is forbidden[…]”

“If lumping people in with their oppressors is forbidden[…]” by @sixthhokage1@tumblr.com@sixthhokage1@tumblr.com
A Tumblr post from April 2017, and a selection of comments.


Original Post:

If lumping people in with their oppressors is forbidden, then you cannot use LGBT, as it lumps us trans people in with cisgender people, it lumps women in with men, etc.

Maybe learn how intersectionality, demographics, and just plain fucking language work before making such awful arguments for the sake of discourse

Tags: #apply critical thinking for five fucking seconds and the argument breaks down #yet so many people still use it to shut down both m-spec and a-spec discussions

carolxdanvers:

allistic lumps neurodivergent people with neurotypical people. so does able-bodied. ‘woman’ lumps trans women with their oppressors, it lumps woc with their oppressors, it lumps lbpq women in with their oppressors.

adiscourseblog:

Just about any word will lump oppressed people with their oppressors unless it’s specific to the point it is no longer beneficial to be made a community. Hell, saying “man” lumps poor men with rich men, trans men with cis men, men of colour with white men, etc.; it’s the most ridiculous argument you could make.

‘Gay’ is a reclaimed slur, just like ‘queer’

my commentary on @aroacemonster@tumblr.com’s post “terfs in the discourse tag” (Tumblr)
This is a comment I made on a Tumblr post in February 2019. The post is about the opposition to the reclamatory use of the word ‘queer’, so-called “ace discourse” where factions within LGBT/queer communities favor the exclusion of those on the asexual and aromantic spectra (a-spec) from said communities, and the connection to trans exclusionary radical feminism. My comment is primarily about the history of the word ‘gay’.


Beyond the present day usage of “gay” in a derogatory way, before it was the umbrella term for the LGBT/Queer coalition and also specifically a term for homosexuality, it was a term that for centuries along with its literal meaning as “happy and carefree” had a connotation of immorality and had by the 17th century picked up the usage of being specifically sexually immoral. Quoth Wikipedia: “A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, and a gay house a brothel. The use of gay to mean ‘homosexual’ was often an extension of its application to prostitution: a gay boy was a young man or boy serving male clients.”

What became known as the “gay community” rallied around the previously derogatory and euphemistic term “gay” particularly with the rise of radical Gay Liberation movements around the 60s, as previous homophile movements and organizations settled more into assimilationist politics (see: the deradicalization and eventual splinter of the Mattachine Society after the ouster of its communist founders).

The exact same thing was done with “queer”, it was a term rallied around and reclaimed by radical liberationist movements.

To try and deny our communities our own language is to spit on the graves of those who didn’t sit around to be somewhat accepted into the status quo if they could cover up their differences but fought tooth and fucking nail for our rights to be loud and queer. It is an assault on our history which we have to fight to even pass on, even in this age of unlimited information at the tip of your fingers (because *some* people are content to not do any amount of actual fucking research and just spout utter bullshit about LGBT/Queer history and the etymology of our identities, and while some inclusionists are guilty of spreading misinformation like this it’s nowhere NEAR the amount that exclusionists do). It is carrying on the history of throwing anyone who literally cannot assimilate under the bus to grasp at the chance for social privilege that no matter what is still out of your reach. And people think they’re being revolutionary and radical while they do it.

Untitled

Navigating Consent On Dating Apps (A Dick Pic Isn’t Communication) – Queer Sex Ed Podcast: Episode 55 (Queer Sex Ed)

This week Sara and Jay are talking about online dating, hooking up, consent communication online, and the culture of dick pics and other boundary crossing online. Also discussed: the male gaze, what app developers could do better, what we can do better as users, and tips for making your online datin

Queer Sex Ed episode on navigating the culture and design of dating apps.

Not a goddamn “spite block”: Reciprocal blocking & safety

The first release candidate for Mastodon 2.8.0 has spawned quite a bit of discourse around blocks. Up to now, trying to follow a blocked user results in an HTTP error code of 403 Forbidden. This would only happen on valid fediverse accounts if you were blocked, but resulted in bogus bug reports so in PR #10420 it was changed to clearly indicate that you are blocked. You can follow the main arguments around this on Issue #10433, but the short version is people saw this as enabling harassers. One proposed and temporarily merged (before the problems I’m about to delve into were brought up and everything in this mess was reverted to pre-10420) solution was in PR #10422, “Hide blocking accounts from blocked users” but this resulted in the issue I really want to talk about here. This makes the person who first blocks someone the sole arbiter of how long the block lasts, as the person on the receiving end of that block cannot load the account in their WebUI or client app to reciprocate the block.

What made me aware of this clusterfuck was a post I saw in the federated timeline, which had a reply dismissing the problem with 10422 as “rare case scenarios” where someone can’t “spite block” someone who blocked them. At the time I was at work so couldn’t formulate a reply, plus I was pissed at the comment and I also don’t wanna be some rando @ing someone, so I didn’t bother coming back to it. But I’m still pissed at the notion that reciprocating a block is just a spiteful action. It’s a fucking safety feature. And to demonstrate, here is a situation from my own life.

Someone I was friends with at the time was in a Discord conversation with me and gave me the push I needed to make a public statement about a sexual predator on the forum we knew each other from. The predator’s a forty-something year old woman and her young adult girlfriend is another relatively popular member of this forum. The girlfriend and another friend of hers PM my now-former friend that I was lying and they blow up on me in Discord, and before I can respond block me. Like fucking hell was I going to trust that they wouldn’t unblock me to yell at me more, so I fucking blocked the motherfucker back. This wasn’t spite. This was safety from someone who had been turned against me by abusive assholes whispering in their ear. (They later reached out to me through a mutual friend when they talked to a mod who had corroborated through discussion with and getting consent to check the PMs of another victim. I must admit I was spiteful in turning their own words against them telling them to fuck off away from me forever. I’d like to thing I was justified in that.)

So quite frankly, if you’re going to criticize people for not thinking through the safety ramifications of something, you had better fucking think through the safety ramifications of your own argument.

Article 13 is not like SOPA/PIPA. Stop the fearmongering and tech capitalist propaganda.

Sixthhokage1’s post in thread “Jim Sterling (The Jimquisition)” (TV Tropes)
This post is a republishing of a series of posts I wrote on the TV Tropes forum thread on the Jimquistion, in response to Jim Sterling’s video “EU Votes In Favor Of Article 13, Giving Copyright Holders Undue Power Over Internet Platforms”. It is slightly edited for the change in format from forum to blog post.


Post 1:

The vast majority of people complaining about Article 13 (now 17) have never read the damn thing. So strap yourselves in, because here’s the full final text of the article.

Article 17, the boogeyman of the Internet [pastebinned to avoid wall of text, original forum post has text behind collapsible folder markup]

Post 2:

Honestly this puts actual regulatory scrutiny to what YT is already doing. Paragraph 7 regulates that measures are to take copyright exemptions/limitations that here in America we term “fair use” into account (which bots can’t do, but humans involved in the process can make judgments on). Paragraph 9 opens with “Member States shall provide that online content-sharing service providers put in place an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism,” and as mentioned in [above post] requires human review for takedowns.

Guess one major reason[1] why YouTube, who already have the Content ID system in place, are opposed to Art13/17? The company doesn’t want the requirements for human review and an effective appeals process. So they mobilize the creators on their platform to fight a propaganda battle for them.[2]


[1]: Another reason is that the regulatory requirements make Content ID less of a bargaining chip when negotiating with rightsholders because the 4(b) requirements and 5(b) considerations (“the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers.”) in combination with how much money Google has available to throw at copyright monitoring moves it from “above and beyond the industry standards” from rightsholders perspectives to “doing your legal duty as a giant content-sharing firm”.

[2]: And before YT mobilized it’s creators as propagandists… anti Art13 propaganda was being banged out by alt-righters with an anti-EU agenda. This is the origin of that goddamned absolutely misleading moniker of it as a “meme ban”.


ETA: I’m not even totally in favor of Article 17 as it passed, speaking as a leftist who thinks that a lot of intellectual property law needs a hatchet taken to it and new much more limited IP systems put in place that favor the general public instead of corporate interests. I’m just sick of the fearmongering and tech capitalist propaganda around it.

In reference to footnote 2 of post 2, another poster asked “Although it is before the Alt-right became prominent, was the backlash towards the Stop Online Piracy Act and the related Protect IP Act started by them as well?”, prompting…

Post 3:

SOPA-PIPA are different beasts entirely to Art13/17, in a different online political landscape in general and in completely different jurisdictions with different approaches to business interests. While the EU Copyright Directive and Article 13/17 in particular does have industry lobbyist support, the EU is overall more measured and generally take the good of the general public into account (see also GDPR, anti-trust cases against tech giants which the US refuse to reign in, and the well-intentioned-but-ultimately-useless browser cookie regulation that was part of a larger privacy directive). Meanwhile here in America, the primary mechanism of SOPA-PIPA was to require payment processors and ad networks to suspend services to any site they get a notice of infringement from about within five days of the notification, unless a satisfactory counter-notice is given (both notice and counter-notice, in SOPA text, must be “written communication” which isn’t defined in the text of the bill as to whether or not that is required to actually be physical communication or if electronic communication is covered). In addition it has mechanisms requiring delisting from search engines with 5 days’ notice but that’s only with a court order so it’s not as unreasonable as it does require a judge to make a ruling instead of a no-oversight notice.

And of course as far as alt-right influences… while the movement did exist in 2011/2012 when the SOPA-PIPA controversy was the talk of the internet, they were mostly cordoned off to relatively secluded corners of the internet and thus didn’t have the social media propaganda machine they have now, mostly built in the aftermath of summer 2014. I mean, this was back when Pewdiepie was a relatively new face and while popular was also distinctly uncool among much of the internet with a reputation of just screaming at games. It wasn’t until he got in hot water for the antisemitic ~prank~ and then used the n-slur on stream that he became an alt-right gamerbro icon and a key figure in the propaganda machine.


Additional note: Article text was taken from this PDF from the European Parliament website.