sideblog of a 30-something canadian lesbian

"I wish I wasn't that way" honey you're a lesbian and you have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. You're surrounded by conversion therapy rhetoric and it's wrong. You aren't having a "genital preference" - you like women. The entire female form. You're a female homosexual. It's okay to be a lesbian.

are attracted to and/or want to sleep with EVERY woman just because she has the type of anatomy we're attracted to

would be attracted to or satisfied with a "disembodied vagina," something I've actually seen TRAs say. I've even seen "why don't you just date a fleshlight or whatever?" which legitimately haunts me

are reducing her to a "walking, talking vagina" (as I've heard multiple times)

are fetishizing vulva (if I were you I'd check the definition of paraphilia/fetish before embarrassing myself further as it explicitly does not apply to interest in specific genitals - plus, attraction and sexual obsession are not the same thing at all)

don't care about the rest of the human being - appearance, sure, but also personality, hobbies, life story, passions, dreams, ambitions, and everything else that every other human being who falls in love with another cares about. does that make it click yet???

should be able and willing to be with the opposite sex as long as they've had "bottom surgery"/ignore all the things about "neovaginas" that are "off" in order to prove our inclusivity or whatever. this is STILL just a reworked form of CONVERSION THERAPY.

and I suspect is the reason for the "saying women have uteri reduces women to reproductive organs!" as well as probably the "saying you're attracted to pussy means you'd be attracted to a disembodied one!" MADNESS. humans are not dolls, I and you and everyone else is One Being and not a bunch of parts that can safely be casually switched out with no consequences or that can be viewed in isolation from the Whole Being. you're not a Potato Head or a doll or a robot or a car.

1. “homosexuals are genitalia obsessed/sex obsessed”

- old homophobic statement, obvious; gay people are perverse and shallow, sinners only obsessed with carnal aspects

2. “penis/vagina fetishism”

- as above. religious homophobes tend to see gay people as someone who has a fetish towards same sex bodies

3. “sex isn’t needed in a relationship”

- aka “but you can have a deep connection without that perverse stuff! why won’t you just be friends?”

4. “it’s shallow to reject someone only because they have a penis!”

- an accusation straight people never face; again, boiling down gay attraction and love to something purely physical and lacking depth

5. “what if you meet [opposite sex person] and fall in love?”

- “what if you meet the right man?”, nowadays changed to “what if you meet a trans girl and fall in love?”. making a point that the person just hasn’t met the “right” someone of the opposite sex yet 

6. “lesbians use strap-ons and dildos, so why don’t they like dick?”

- I heard it in conservative Poland at the age of 10 or so, from teenage boys who thought it meant lesbians actually like dick, or else they wouldn’t want to be penetrated with fake dick. they just hate men. or something. nowadays they hate trans women

7. “it’s a preference”

- again, an old notion that says it’s a choice, matter of personal tastes. “genital preference” currently

8. “homosexuals are reducing people to their genitalia”

- again, the implication that sex based attraction means objectification and reduction, that gay people see their potential partners as walking penises or vulvae and that there’s no depth or personal connection to it

9. “but sex doesn’t have to involve genitalia”

- being in an opposite sex relationship is “better” so you should go through the hassle of finding usually unsatisfying “alternative” methods instead of being with a partner you’d actually like. also a notion used in conversion therapy.

10. “homosexuality results from trauma”

- aka “it’s ok if you had trauma with penis!”. it’s the notion that exclusive same-sex attraction is just ptsd from being assaulted by an opposite sex person

11. “but lesbians like trans men/butches/intersex women” 

- again, the implication that since lesbians like “women who look like men”, it means they actually like men and seek out the closest substitute (also the notion that androgynous women are just imperfect copies of manhood) but won’t go for real men because of personal hangups 

I used to be very involved and active in ultra “woke” communities like Leftbook. This rhetoric was e v e r y w h er e: It’s okay to have a genital preference, really! We get it… some of you have trauma :)

I, like many women, have been through all kinds of sexual trauma since childhood. However, I’ve had wonderful psychological help and no longer feel affected by that, and haven’t for many years. I certainly didn’t /feel/ like I had the infamous “penis trauma” (unironically a common phrase in those spaces), but… I started telling everyone I did. I started trying to convince myself that I was less mentally healthy, had made less progress in therapy, and was more traumatized than I actually was. Because that was the only acceptable way to exist as a homosexual woman in those communities. Not to mention, mental health is generally frowned upon in those spaces as well, so everyone has an adequate jumping off point for trauma bonding.

You’re being selfish. you’re being shallow. Why are you so obsessed with genitalia? You’re telling me that all you’re interested in is sex? Have you considered a sexless relationship? You can always try and see how you feel. Just because you didn’t like it once doesn’t mean you will never like it. Let’s talk about why you’re so fixated on genitalia. What if you found you soulmate, but it turns out they’re the opposite sex, you would really just lose interest? Look how you’re hurting all these people - you’re saying you find them repulsive? How do you think that feels?

The amount of vitriol aimed at her and her work to diminish her accomplishments and devalue her work when compared to what is leveled at any men (take your pick really), is telling.

Nobody is trying to retroactively claim that any movie ever produced by Weinstein was actually a dud, or that The Pianist has no cinematic value despite Polanski being an actual child rapist, or that if you still enjoy Toy Story you're stupid because it was actually "bad all along" despite Lasseter being... well who he is. No.

People are not trying to pretend any piece of media ever produced by "bad men" were actually never any good. Or not to the extend I'm seeing it happen with JKR and Harry Potter in any case...

First because, again, no one levels that kind of bullshit at other creators. No one is crying foul about Pullman writing within the HDM universe, nor at GRRM for writing side projects within ASOIF before even finishing the main story (granted, he does get criticisms for not writing the end at all, but that's a legitimate thing to say, the vitriol isn't about him writing something else and expending per see which makes a difference here). Others are allowed to expend, to add, even to sell their intellectual property to big studios to plunder without much criticism, but god forbid JKR says Hermione loved math in middle school on Twitter. They act like for her to be legitimate as "HP's owner" she must be perfect and needs to ask "permission" before having fun with it just for the sake of it. I've never seen any other creator treated that way to THAT extent, and if I'm wrong, please show it to me, but I don't think you'll be able to.

Secondly because in what God forsaken universe do you live in where this Fandom DIDN'T ask? We did ask. We did nothing but ask! Are you all zoomers who didn't grow up during the madness or do you have that much of a short term memory?

Back in 2007 after DH was published, people kept asking her over and over again; "Please Jo write Hogwarts: A History", "I hope she does a Marauders prequel!", "Jo, what is Neville's wand core?", "it would be so cool to know what the next Gen is up to" and so on and so forth. This is why Pottermore originally became a thing in the first place, a website which she labeled a gift to the readers at the start and where she released the unpublished material that didn't make it into the novels for FREE.

But now that you don't like everything that she's said and that it doesn't entirely conform to your imagination, ideas and American-centred calvinist politics, you're acting like toddlers throwing temper tantrums for not getting exactly what you want?

A bunch of you are acting so entitled it's not even funny, JK Rowling is one of the huge reason why Fandom culture is allowed to be what it is today, she's was one of the first big name authors to publicly say that people should be allowed to play in her sandbox, with the toys she brought in, even actively encouraged it. But now here you are acting like you own the sandbox and she ought to ask you before participating if she wants to.

Let’s say I meet a beautiful woman. We start talking and she’s got a great personality. I’ve got a crush now. Then she tells me she actually doesn’t identify as a woman, she uses he/they pronouns. No matter how much I would like to respect his identity, I am still attracted to him. I can’t turn that off. Nothing about our material reality changed. He’s got the same body, the same personality, the same everything I’m attracted to. Only the words changed. Why would my attraction be altered?

Alternatively, let’s say I meet a man. I am not attracted to him, and I tell him so. He then tells me he doesn’t identify as a man, that he uses she/her pronouns. What about our situation actually changes? She has the same body, the same personality, the same everything I was not attracted to before. Why would I suddenly become attracted to her?