Really Confused Me - Tumblr Posts

hmk. i feel like the conversation around nonbinary ppl bein included in attraction is. not quite what it shuold be

“nonbinary people are inherently included in all orientations!!!” is a disgusting, misgendering concept.

“all orientations have the possibility of including some nonbinary people” is a more accurate, still probably problematic, alternative.

explanation: a gay man’s orientation does not inherently include all nonbinary people, because not all nonbinary people are masc-aligned fem-aligned, transfem, nonaligned, and MANY MANY MORE are not necessarily included. this applies to any and every orientation. HELL, even masc-aligned enbies might not be comfortable being included in a gay man’s orientation. 

orientation and its relationship to gender, especially nonbinary genders, is messy and the language we currently have is not sufficient.

saying “it’s possible you were already attracted to a nonbinary person, so enbies are included in all orientations” is stil the same problem. it’s not as woke as you think it is. it just shows how people will still assign genders to people based on outward presentation, and assumes a certain presentation expectation of nonbinary people. just because a trans man wears a dress and a lesbian finds him attractive doesn’t mean he’s included in said lesbian’s attraction, to make a possibly unhelpful analogy.

this might seem like a nitpick of wording, but it’s fucking important.

edit: changed “male-lite” to “masc-aligned” to avoid being reductionist!

(also for anyone curious, i used male-lite ironically, i think the term is offensive too grnoigrng)