allosexisterfs:

butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway:

ske-lee-ton:

allosexisterfs:

justonepurpose:

catsanddiscourse:

justonepurpose:

“You can’t use the word “gatekeeping” because it’s a word made by and for trans people.“

Hmm what an interesting point you bring up. It’s not true but it does make me think. Isn’t there another word made by and for trans people? A word that many have asked exclusionists to stop using incorrectly? A word that’s been turned into a dogwhistle and a catch all for “people I don’t like”. Isn’t there a word…made by and for trans people…that a lot of cis people are using…hmm…what is it…

I think it’s. Oh, it’s coming back to me now. That’s right. I think it’s “cishet”.

Cis lgb people use cishet to say they hold no powet of trans het people of a cis lgb person says that get people oppress them, they’re implying trans het people hold power over them, which in fact trans het people do not hold any power of cis lgb people

Cis LGB people should not be using the phrase “cishet” because it implies that they can be oppressed for being cis, which they cannot.

The term was created by non-straight trans people specifically to talk about the intersection of their oppression by cis and het people. It was coined by trans people to use as an identifier for their unique brand of oppression…and ace exclusionists like yourself have stolen it, warped it, and rendered it a useless dogwhistle that means “person I don’t like” or “aspec”.

Your movement has robbed queer trans folks of their language because you weaponized the word they coined against other queer people. So shame on you, and shame on you for defending this nasty shit. 

Cis people should not be using the word “cishet” to talk about the oppression they face, because they are not oppressed for being cis. End point. 

tbh as A Trans™ I am not interested in cis people’s whining about how they just wanted to pretend they were using it to avoid implying that trans het people had power over them

If you are willing to accept the het trans people who want to be in your community because you understand that even when trans people access het privilege, it’s INCREDIBLY conditional….

BUT you’re not willing to accept the het intersex people who want to be in the community, and you haven’t educated yourself enough about what intersex people experience to recognize how conditional their privilege is too….

And you’re not willing to accept the heteromantic asexual people who want to be in the community, and you won’t listen to them about how conditional their access to privilege is….

Then fuck off with your pretending to support trans people. We don’t want your superficial, incredibly conditional allyship.

Also wasn’t “gatekeeping” coined by disability activists?

Even if it wasn’t it was certainly in use by disability activists long before these people are claiming trans activists coined it. It’s a cross-communal concept and pretty much always has been.

Yeah. The term has been around for as long as there have been gates, probably, but according to Wikipedia, “Kurt Lewin was the first to identify the word gatekeeping. It was first mentioned in his book, Forces Behind Food Habits and Methods of Change. He first applied the concept to the food chain using the example of a female being the person deciding what food is placed on the dinner table.

“After exploring this idea he started to add to the gating process and how it can change the communication channels. The first person to turn Lewin’s words into a journalism idea was David Manning White in the 1950s.

“Then in the 1970s ideas about the influence of gatekeepers and their decisions were further developed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in their construction of agenda setting theory.”

The other side of this is that I’ve also seen exclusionists use “it was coined by disability activists!” to say that inclusionists can’t call them gatekeepers, despite the huge amounts of ableism in exclusionist arguments, so….