The labels have the character’s name followed by 受 (uke), which means being the receptive or passive partner, or in BL slang means the bottom. Most underrated organizational system ever by the way. Please show this to anyone who claims that “unwoke” Japan doesn’t “shoehorn queerness into everything”.

    • da_gay_pussy_eatah [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean I get what you mean, my anatomy certainly doesn’t stop me from feeling like a woman. Obviously gender is far far more than anatomy, but I’m not going to pretend like they are completely unrelated. If that’s your experience, that’s great and I’m happy for you, but it’s unfortunately not mine.

      • ashinadash [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Why aren’t they completely unrelated? Because doctors assign everyone’s gender at birth exclusively based on their genitalia? Doesn’t sound that inherent to me.

        Especially given how surgeons frequently disfigure intersex infants to fit this binary.

        • da_gay_pussy_eatah [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. Society reduces gender to anatomy, therefore the two are completely unrelated, actually? Are you saying it’s wrong for trans people to want bottom surgery?

            • da_gay_pussy_eatah [she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              I wasn’t talking about intersex surgeries, sorry that was unclear.

              Look, it’s obvious you and I just don’t mean the same thing by “X is/isn’t inherently gendered”. If genitalia are not gendered, then nothing is, and also any queer labels are all meaningless including straightness and cisness. Which I happen to believe, generally speaking.

              But as long as we’re having a conversation about something “being gay” or whatever, then it’s silly to pretend like society doesn’t actually view genitals as associated with gender.

              • ashinadash [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Okay, I was. It’s a good reference point for the concept of anatomy being gendered.

                Yes; labels are also constructed things exclusively used simply by people to describe themselves. No one trait of a human is inherently gendered; nothing is. “Cis” and “straight” still have meaning, in fact all queer labels do. Descriptive meanings.

                Right but that’s entirely on the person (in this case, the weird sad cis het man) doing the objectifying & presumable agonising about his sexuality. It’s not like it’s impossible that this man could simply be gay and coping weird, but inherently there is nothing gay about his attraction. The anatomy is only gendered in his goofyass mind.

                • da_gay_pussy_eatah [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  It’s a good reference point for the concept of anatomy being gendered.

                  But that’s exactly my point; society does gender anatomy. Society genders a bunch of other things, too. I’m not being prescriptive about it. I’m not saying I think that’s a good thing and we should do it more.

                  As for whether it’s gay to like dicks, I believe it is at least a little gay, but also I don’t care. Like I said, I think once we start trying to draw form boundaries around queer labels then inevitably people will start to get confused because nobody views it exactly the same way. For example, is a ftm4mtf relationship straight? Yeah, I guess. But it’s also queer. It follows, then, that queerness and straightness are not mutually exclusive, so something can be straight but also a little gay. Or very gay. It’s whatever.

                  • ashinadash [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Societal definition doesn’t count as anything like “inherent”…

                    A trans man in a relationship with a trans woman is undeniably straight, because it is a man and a woman. Whether or not it’s queer is more nuanced, most people would probably say it is, but some trans people don’t want to identify as “queer”. I think straight trans people balking at the queer label might be assimilationist, but I’m also just one person.

                    Of course you can be both straight and queer. This was a big heady topic until you started seeing more heteroromantic asexual people, who are straight, but asexuality is undoubtedly queer.

                    You’re sure allowed to believe that a man liking cock is “at least a little gay” based on the fact that straight society deems it so, if you want. But given that cock isn’t actually related to any gender at all, and that men can like cock without being attracted to other men at all, I think that’s a pretty poor stance.