this is awesome (both your first comment with thoughts and analysis and also all these reading recommendations), thank you!

great recommendations comrade

Yup, saving this post. Definitely one of the best of hexbear.

I have a few things I would like to reply with here, but I want to start with assuring you that no part of my analysis is meant as any kind of personal attack on individual queer people; I realize this can be a sensitive topic and at times that can cause people to feel defensive about discussions, but what I wrote about is western hegemony not individual western queers. I’m sorry for any feelings of invalidation you may feel.

Secondly, I will say that there is an implication in your response that I am somehow “outside” of the discussion. That is to say, you imply that you are “actual queer” and that I am not and thus have no place to speak about “actual queers.” I’m not sure what led to this assumption, but it’s nowhere in my text, and any quick follow-up showing the sheer amount I study and recommend queer theory (in this thread and elsewhere) should serve as at least a rudimentary hint that I am very much “inside” the discussion, and don’t appreciate your implication that I have no place to make this analysis.

Now, as to your point: when discussing cultural hegemony, the intentions and the desires of the individual are quite literally immaterial: it doesn’t matter what individual queer people intend with their language. The hegemonic institutions of western imperialism are pervasive and invasive, and whether a settler intends to participate in the perpetuation of hegemony or not is irrelevant to the fact that the settler inevitably and inescapably does participate in it. From the innocuous application of english identifiers to other cultures (like claiming that hijra, or two-spirit, or travesti, or transsexuelles are transgender) to outright purposeful queer imperialism. It doesn’t matter, it all lends to the weight of the cultural hegemony of the english colonial world.

Even within english itself there are hegemonic ideals of queer identity that get reified through repetition: it is no individual’s fault, it is just the way that structures of hegemony function. This is how the word transsexual fell out of vogue, how fairy, dyke and transvestite became relics to mainstream queer theory. And that mainstream is led by white academics and the media apparatus of the bourgeoisie, like it or not.

I also have to disagree with your statement that “literally no gay person in the west does that.” Queer media (including posts in this very forum) are rife with discussions of the coming out narrative, and in the western queer lexicon someone is gay, for instance. Homosexuality is not an act, it is a way of being. That’s not a value judgement, it’s just the way that gayness works in the mainstream (hegemonic) western english culture. The identity tags, while they may matter to varying degrees and for varying reasons to different individuals, do serve the purpose in the mainstream culture of informing a reading of a person’s every action, whether we desire it or not. If a trans artist writes a song, that becomes a trans song. For example: look at UGLY DEATH NO REDEMPTION ANGEL CURSE I LOVE YOU by Ada Rook. The first song on the album, “im cis” quite literally says “i say none of my songs are about being trans” and yet the first review published about the album spoke about it being a trans album. (Backxwash has talked about this as well, that her album was largely about immigrant experience, racism, and suicidal ideation, but every article about her when she won the Polaris was about “Trans Musician Backxwash.”)

On the other hand, plenty of queer people, whether enthusiastically, reluctantly, ironically, or earnestly, contribute to discussions/memes/discourse about being gay or being trans or whatever other label. Again, this is not a value judgement, it is just a thing that I have personally observed and studied (and participated in, because, as I said, the way hegemony works is we are all implicated to varying degrees). It’s not inherently a bad thing (and can even be affirming for the participant), but that does mean that the hegemony is continuing to be reasserted. And the real problem is when it gets applied cross-culturally without introspection.

To take it to the way anglo hegemony works: whether you desire it or not, english is the language of the global hegemon. When you use it, when you translate cultural ideas and feelings into english, you are participating in the spread of that hegemony. Things that exist in non-english cultural contexts necessarily undergo transformation to be translated into english to be understood by an english audience. That’s the very nature of translation. However, because of the imbalance in power between english (as the colonial language of the global hegemon) and other languages, this is by its very nature a translation that serves to further cultural hegemony.

The point, I suppose, is that settlers perpetuate hegemony whether they wish to or not, whether they are victims of that hegemony or not, and that goes for queer settlers too. (the colonized perpetuate hegemony too, that is its nature, to become instantiated in the society such that it is self-reproducing)

This was more about queerness in a broader sense (the survey in the article also covered sexual minorities as well as gender minorities). The article lumps sexual and gender minorities together throughout (LGBTQ) and so I was addressing sexual and gender discrimination as a whole as well. I know the title was specifically about transphobia, but there was nothing specifically about gender identity separate from sexual orientation in the article itself, aside from saying trans people were the most discriminated against.

I will also add: there actually are cultural contexts in which “gender identity” is an act, meaning the gender role is, quite literally, the role that is currently being engendered, and not an intrinsic/total way of being, but that wasn’t specifically what I was addressing, I just kept it as broad as the source material I was replying to.

The US (CIA) uses these NGO to cause problems in these countries. The US loves to use minorities against the US enemies. The US used to “support” LGBTQ+ groups in Venezuela and Cuba, and used them against Chavez and Fidel. The moment Cuba and Venezuela began actually supporting and granting these groups rights, the US and the NGO stopped supporting them.

The fear is that those LGBT organizations might be being used as tools for various intelligence organizations to do intelligence organization stuff. I cant remember any specifics but the CIA has aided some minorities to act against powers they oppose. As much as I want global liberation for my sisters, brothers, and siblings I do recognize how the existence of people like me is cynically weaponized on political stages.

Aside from the way NGOs are often part of a larger complex of foreign intervention, even to take them at face value as attempting to “help” is to buy into an imperialist narrative. It is one of white saviorism, that pushes a hegemonic anglo ideal of queer identity. The idea that there is some inherent “community” between queer people in distinct and discrete cultural milieus is abjectly ahistorical: queer identities are products of the cultural contexts in which they come to exist, and so colonial queer institutions at their most innocent are still trying to spread a domineering hegemony of queerness.

What it is to engage in same-sex desires, what it is to adopt different gender roles: these are not translatable from one cultural context to the next, but in western media/political landscapes it is only by adhering to a specific set of (largely white, middle class, and english) identities can “queerness” be liberated. Which is especially egregious considering how deftly colonialism introduced much of the global systems of discrimination in play today, and strives even now to subsume and erase a multitude of identities both within the imperial core and without. Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy at feigning some higher state of social progression in the west when that is felt only by the economically secure, educated white class of queers.

Just as colonial authorities sought to prescribe universal and immutable identities of “man” and “woman” (which included the act of penile-vaginal intercourse as inherent gender markers) and to vilify all that fell without, queer colonial authorities now seek to prescribe immutable categories of “gay” and “trans” that are completely illegible in most cultural contexts.

For specific and concrete examples of NGOs acting as insidious cultural dominators, I recommend Adnan Hossein’s Beyond Emasculation: Pleasure and Power in the Making of hijra in Bangladesh. In the latter half of the book, Hossein addresses the way western NGOs brought trans identity into conflict with hijra lived experiences, and created conflict between those who existed in the cultural context of hijra, and those who now sought to conform to the cultural context of trans. One of the main ways this conflict is perpetuated is by tying international and domestic funding to NGOs that operate with western ideas of LGBT, and thus force Bangladeshi people to vie for recognition and legitimacy under western frameworks that are irreconcilable with many hijra practices and identifiers.

There’s no need to be so dramatic, you wouldn’t be banned for something like this. You’re listening to lemmitors too much.

Well, having a one-post account where this is the one post might draw ire, but I can talk about China being revisionist all day and no one will believe me but I don’t so much as get a comment removed.

“China is unfortunately socially conservative” is a common opinion(due to being true) and won’t get you banned.

Making an alt to post this however might because it’s indicative of trying to stir drama.

You could have picked a less obvious username yah know, I’d more likely to assume you were acting in good faith if you did.

Men loving men.

gay butt sex

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Idk i dont speak chinese