Gay aphobes: “Aces/aros can’t be in the community! Resource stealing might happen!”
Bi people: “So are you going to address the fact that gay people take the resources meant for us and leave us with the scraps?”
Gay aphobes: “No.”
Bi people: “But-”
Gay aphobes: “Quiet down before I start bombarding you with biphobia again!”
Wait are people actually getting mad about this post? Bi organizations got
$0 out of $97,189,139 for LGBT+ funding but if we dare speak out about it then we’re homophobic?
Bisexuals got less than 1% of LGBTQ grant dollars despite making up about half of the LGBT+ community. Also both gay men and lesbians had an increase in funding
(good thing!) while funding for bisexuals decreased (bad thing!). Which is appalling considering they were already getting less than 1% to begin with.
Bi people tend to fare worse than gay people in issues such as poverty, coming out, health, mental illness, violence, abuse, suicide etc. These statistics are constantly used to get more funding for LGBT+ organizations but then barely any of it goes towards bisexuals. Which is y’know stealing resources.
okay you know what something about this fucking bothered me as an angry bisexual so i decided to read it and what i found in the report was strikingly fucking different from what you’re even saying.
for starters the first link is broken so here is a fixed link if anyone wants to correct me (im not saying it was intentional probably a mistake bc this site is broken). i went down to the grants and it CLEARLY STATES on page 10 for grants: “The vast majority of LGBTQ grants in 2014 targeted the LGBTQ community broadly. The data below looks at grants that
specifically supported one segment of the LGBTQ community”. which means the VAST MAJORITY of ALL MONEY lgbt people can access is available to ALL LGBT members. gay men and lesbians are not ‘stealing money or resources’, the table that comes after this is what SPECIFIC grants are for.
now it does look as though gay men have more–bi people are the light blue/aqua color. but why is that? well
“Funding for gay men nearly doubled in 2014. This jump is almost entirely attributable to the spike in HIV/AIDS funding.
Nearly 90 percent of the funding specifically awarded to gay men was for HIV/AIDS.” almost all of the funding gay men can get is for HIV/AIDS. 90% of all the money they can and do receive isn’t ‘just to support them because they are gay’ its so they can get treatment for a life threatening illness you heartless assholes. in fact, if you take away specifically HIV/AIDS funding gay men get around only one percent (10 percent of 11 percent is 1.1 percent, are you seriously about to start fighting over fractions of percentages too though?)
also nice of you to ignore how much funding trans people get compared to lesbian women and bisexuals–or are gay men the only evil ‘resource hoarding’ ones here??? or maybe you are forced to admit that these specific grants are sometimes needed to support specific members of the community more than others?
you’re all vile what the hell is wrong with you. mocking gay men for getting and increase of fucking for HIV/AIDS??? REALLY???? thats what you’ve submitted yourself to??? lying about funding, manipulating charts, and mocking people for medical treatment??? good fucking lord
“It was a tsunami. In April of ’82 there was an article in the New York Times about a new gay cancer, and everyone thought ‘oh well.’ I was in my twenties. I wasn’t worried about a thing. But then every week you started to hear about somebody becoming ill. My boss was one of the first. He was a famous florist. He went into the hospital on Thanksgiving and was dead by Easter. I lost most of my friends. A lot of the first men to die were privileged. They were closeted, corporate white men. During the day they were bankers but at night they’d hit the leather clubs and bars. But they learned their privilege didn’t matter after they got sick. They were just ‘gay.’ We had to fight for AIDS to be recognized by the government. We joined together with people of color, and junkies, and prostitutes. It was a beautiful thing, really. Our feminist lesbian sisters taught us how to protest because they’d been doing it for decades. They showed us how to organize meetings, and bring people together, and force the government to the table—things we’d never had to think about as white men.”
it doesn’t sit well with me that “emotional labor” in it’s original context was Arlie Hochschild talking very specifically about how taxing face to face service industry jobs are for people (namely women) with this very nuanced context and is now used in everything from “i had to explain something to someone on twitter” or heavily in contexts of romantic relationships. not all emotional management and exchange is labor! to insert the idea of “labor” excessively into interpersonal relationships creates a system of “i performed ____ and now you OWE me for exerting ____” and it’s not healthy or what the term is for.
The way that the term ‘emotional labour’ is used by radlibs actually achieves the exact opposite of what it was originally intended to achieve. Hochschild was trying to critique the way that capitalism requires us to treat such personal things as emotional responses and inteprersonal relationships as commodities to be bought and sold. I see so many people seizing on the idea of emotional labour exactly so that they can monetise talking to each other, explaining things, or just being nice.
Someone on Facebook once apologised to me and said they wouldn’t feel like they had properly atoned until I would accept their money. That’s… deeply disturbing. That’s exactly how capitalism wants us to understand our relationships - that they’re composed of a serious of transactions, that those transactions are mediated by flows of money, and that the only way for a relationship to be healthy is if it’s appropriately lubricated by cash. If a world where we have to pay one-another for anyone to be nice is truly the pinnacle of the identitarian politics these weird online affinity groups hold, I think that’s all the more reason to look towards different organisational forms.
