The idea that people HAVE to expose themselves to the maximum amount of suffering and vulnerability or you won't consider them valid? The subsequent revelation that you OUTED A WRITER because YOU, personally, were offended by their silence? THIS IS REALLY SHITTY.
-
-
Replying to @fozmeadows @DarkMatterzine
Given the fact that, by your own account, you lost a job because of your disability, you'd think you might be sympathetic to other people wanting to stay employed by not disclosing their disabilities to their employers, but no. You WANT people to risk being fired.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows
No. I'm saying that if you want to hide the fact of your disability, don't then use that disability for personal gain on the rare occasion you think it will benefit you. Don't have it both ways. I said that at the beginning and consistently throughout.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DarkMatterzine
Yes, you said it consistently AND THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE OBJECTING TO. You cannot seem to comprehend that the core of your point, correctly identified, is what people are saying sucks. Because it DOES suck.
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows @DarkMatterzine
What you're saying is, "if revealing your marginalisation might cost you work or social opportunities in some contexts or cause you to risk violence, so you don't share it everywhere, you are NOT allowed to write about for money." Why? What's the sense in that?
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows
I did not say that. I specifically and explicitly did not say that. If you look at the original post and at my follow up, I explicitly stated that people can write identities they don't own but they must do research and write respectfully.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DarkMatterzine
Yes, you did. You said that if POC ever passed as white, if Muslims ever passed as not Muslim, then they're not ownvoices; your line in the sand was that people be out at all times, in all contexts, or it wouldn't count.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows @DarkMatterzine
Here are your actual words. Nobody is misrepresenting you: THIS IS WHAT YOU LITERALLY SAID.pic.twitter.com/LohymoOfI7
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @fozmeadows
Yeah, so I'm saying, eg, those who have lucrative day jobs where they hide their identities shouldn't take opportunities from those who have FA because gatekeeping. Also, you don't get to speak for the queer community if you're not out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DarkMatterzine
"lucrative day jobs" is not a qualifier you've used before now; you're shifting the goalposts. And even then - if someone needs to hide their marginalisation to HAVE a lucrative day job, THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM ANY LESS MARGINALISED. and closeted people are still queer, actually!
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes
like!! if a closeted person is out on their anonymised twitter account? they still get to speak for the queer community! they don't start being queer only when they come out! BEING CLOSETED IS VERY MUCH PART OF THE QUEER EXPERIENCE, WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.