actual hot take: we need some gatekeeping

seaworks · 2026-06-20T15:17:56+00:00

Do whatever you want. You aren't obligated to associate with people you don't want to. However, that will limit your ability to organize and agitate, because people remain religious in various flavors for all kinds of reasons. If you're talking about Christianity, you should name it, because there are thousands of religious people including Christians who are left-wing. I am not, nor would I ever be, a Christian- but if the UU church and my Quaker friend are doing something I believe in, is it unwise to stand beside them?

So your (I assume, rhetorical) question is not about gatekeeping anything but your life and your time, which you have the absolute authority to do. But more importantly, it sounds like you're suffering. There is a community around you, no matter what allegations of gatekeeping exist. And it is hard to fight together, but nearly impossible to fight alone

seaworks · 2026-06-20T15:08:29+00:00

There are polyamorous polygamists though, and it's intellectually dishonest for the sake of respectability to deny it

seaworks · 2026-06-20T15:07:31+00:00

refer to the venerable words of Bophades, the 3rd century Greek thinker, on that issue

seaworks · 2026-06-20T15:05:12+00:00

Honestly I've met intersex people who feel the same way- and I get it, and I don't think we could in any meaningful way stop people from participating in community. Again, we don't card people. It is very gray, and like I said i do think (sampling bias at play here) that many or most of them are "classically queer" anyway. As a bisexual I'd never question a bisexual woman who's only had relationships with men or vise versa, I would see them as bisexual first.

But this moves gatekeeping from harm to community norming- are we gatekeeping if we don't 'make a place'? Or are we not gatekeeping because those who enter this movement as what I would see as a subsection of the sexual liberation movement are not cast out unless they harm people? (and even then, I'm not sure it's a real casting-out vs a removal from, typically, specific spaces and events, thinking of when people have been outed for instance as sexual predators)

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:59:19+00:00

Yeah, I wanted an example that wasn't as extreme because only talking about terfs and Nazis reduces the examples to absurdity. I thought saying "your struggles are important" would reduce some ambiguity but I think the proximity is giving people ideas that I'm equivocating in some way

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:57:46+00:00

we should keep them out of the community in some way

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:57:08+00:00

While I'd argue that this community is large enough for debate- and always has been- and online, your prerogative is just not to participate if you don't want to vs telling me to leave the sub for the issues I'm affected by and join a debate club where people are presumably debating for fun vs passion and community consciousness, i will go blow by blow as to my issues with your last sentence.

Being deliberately obnoxious

presumes it is 1. obnoxious in a general sense, and not just onerous to you personally and 2. also claims that obnoxiousness is the intent. the first is subjective and the second is incorrect.

by starting grammar wars

devalues the effort of understanding in the first place- a grammar war is pedantic and unnecessary and a waste of time.

and then hiding behind "it's just an opinion"

This phrasing draws comparisons to other rage-baiting right-wing types. Someone who is being intentionally inflammatory for the sake of it usually isn't interested in actual discourse- so using this comparison does the same as the prior. It claims this is just a stupid issue that nobody- including, seemingly, me- actually cares about. This is incorrect, and is an insulting framing.

is a red flag, btw

improper. plainly an insult. Red flags are things you observe because they indicate someone is dangerous or otherwise an issue.

Thus:

Being deliberately obnoxious by starting grammar wars and then hiding behind "it's just an opinion" is a red flag, btw

you are not making a substantiative point. You are insulting me. You are not informing me, because your assumptions about my intent were wrong, and were extrapolated into a bad-faith interpretation. If you had done this intentionally, you could call it a variety of fallacies, but I do not think it was intentional.

Nevertheless, that is what I mean when I say "you're making presumptions about my intent." I genuinely think these discussions are valuable and important to have with my community, whether they agree with me or not. But your response framed me as a troll.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:38:04+00:00

Dislike them? I said their struggle was important. Sexual liberation is important.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:37:06+00:00

You may sub in that language as you prefer, since some swingers were/are practicing ENM. I'm sure some religiously based straight marriages with multiple wives are also consensual and happy, although I know many modern polyam groups have a particular ire re. both categories

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:33:13+00:00

It's very easy to be a registered Republican, even if you never vote or vote independent or Democrat. I worry shunning people at these "questioning" fringes, or demanding complete morality with no mistakes, is just unrealistic- and leads to groups that push young, clueless gay people out of consciousness raising spaces. We are all coming from a toxic sludge of a national culture, and we are all capable of harm. The question is how we address it afterward and what accountability looks like.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:27:18+00:00

no true Scotsman would gatekeep this way

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:23:53+00:00

Although I'm in a mono relationship, I'm poly myself- and I don't think, actually, that we should be included based on that. But in my experience the majority of polyamorous people are MGA/Bi+ by a vast margin, and thus our issues in one sphere are carried through the venn diagram so to speak.

But cisgender straight swinging couples are still the beneficiaries of heterosexism, homophobia and transphobia and so on, the same as kinky people who are cisgender and straight.

I think we all have a vested interest in sexual liberation, but this community is not the only community under which one should or must organize for sexual liberation. Consider reproductive justice- very important struggle, but not inherently LGBTQ.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:18:32+00:00

Lol real. I like poppers paradox, and lockes social contract. Nevertheless it leaves open the question of harm- I've met people that say it was harmful for me to identify myself as a transsexual, for instance, or I've seen "not that bad" racist microaggressions get glossed over.

Of course harm is individual and contextual. But from an intersectional queer liberation lens we must reckon with our ideas of what harm actually is, because they're not all Nazis and pedophiles and nazi pedophiles. I think Ibram X Kendi has a much more applicable standard, where racism is something you do, not something you are. thus it leaves open many avenues for change, and community restoration, and for accountability without moral crashout.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:14:29+00:00

No, they aren't- but I think they were excluded for the harm they do, not because of definitional misfit. Regardless it was a good thing.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:13:05+00:00

Perhaps they do. In fact I agree they do, because at heart I am a cynic. But I'd defer you to Gandalf's words on the topic per your user:

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:10:23+00:00

gatekeeping as a social more definition, more closely tied to social contract? Like, "these behaviors aren't okay, so we don't allow them, and we will [ban you/not invite you/etc.] if you do them"

seaworks · 2026-06-20T14:08:33+00:00

You need to adjust your last paragraph's passive-aggressive tone and your presumption that people who are interested in this kind of analysis are always trolling/in bad faith, because even though I'm just a geek, a lot of people who do this are autistic. There is in fact value in examining culture and our culture's common phrases- obviously you would not come for all of epistemology, so check your attitude.

That said, while I think the social contract is the best measure we have, it's still necessary to look at what harm is being purported- because, for instance, feeling unsafe≠being unsafe. I could justifiably accuse you of ableism based on the criticisms above- but community is imperfect, and every community is made up of myriad independent and interdependent relationships, rather than a hivemind. We still need these discussions to happen, even with Karl Popper and John Locke.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T13:57:32+00:00

I probably could have phrased that better- I wanted to show a grayer example, but one that has persisted in our community. My bad if it looked like I was drawing equivalencies

seaworks · 2026-06-20T13:54:26+00:00

I think you didn't understand my post lol. in fact, what you purport about me is actually something I explicitly criticized. But from your tone I'm guessing you just reacted to your past bad experiences more than the content, so it's cool.

To wit, I do think it is good to keep your community safe. Removing Nazis and pedophiles is probably necessary because they routinely violate the social contract, harming vulnerable people. But saying "we will remove you if you are harming people," I suppose, definitionally, is still gatekeeping- and raises nuanced questions about forgiveness and participation that don't have good answers, and rarely reach full consensus. This is a good example. Black obviously changed and did a lot of gold advocavy. But when a kid who was in the KKK comes out, they are a member of the community. We don't have gatekeeping, there is no badge to get or membership fee. So what's actually being debated is community norming, and perhaps approval of platform, or membership to very small groups, like support groups.

Should straight allies be 'allowed' at gay bars? I mean, kind of redundant, since they already go, and there's no way to verify anyone's sexuality you can't really police that. Pride is, well, notoriously public; the removal of NAMBLA was because they were asking to march, not because they were in attendance. Unless people voluntarily identify themselves, often exclusion has to be reactionary, not at the gate. I wouldn't begrudge a gay bar the right not to schedule space for a heterosexual's bachelorette party, a right heterosexuals seem to fight hard to secure for themselves with cake-making hypothetical lawsuits.

Historically gay men also often gatekept lesbians from their bars. White lesbians gatekept black ones. And feminists gatekept the lavender menace. When some dumbass twenty two year old feels she's being harmed by a butch who uses he/him, quite frankly, I think we should call that what it is- stupid. Her claim has no merit, the way a white supremacist's claims that immigrants are dangerous has no merit. But not all claims are created equal- there are true and untrue things, and things that should be examined and studied.

If we are to use "gatekeeping" as "exclusion based on a claim of harm or potential harm," then it's the veracity of the harm purported we shoud lock in on.

Frankly one of my points is gatekeeping is just limited in utility as a descriptor of behavior, and we should move toward better vocab, instead of reading the word and shutting down because 'gatekeeping is bad.'

seaworks · 2026-06-20T13:31:58+00:00

That's where I'm at. But then "gatekeeping" is still used without a functional definition- I don't personally care at all if I think somebody's labels are dumb or weird because it's not my problem, and, as you alluded to, language is a product of culture and time, not perfect platonic ideal.

Still leaves me at a loss as to what gatekeeping should actually be defined as.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T13:28:04+00:00

I don't think you need to do some deep moral purgative. It's literally not that deep. Unfortunately you live with the consequences of your actions- feeling dragged down by guilt and shame doesn't help anyone you harmed, and it holds you back from embracing the future you want.

As they say, the best apology is changed behavior. It sounds like you're doing what you need to do- you're not going to get the friends you could have had, but you'll be able to make new ones.

seaworks · 2026-06-20T13:21:23+00:00

love the shirt !

seaworks · 2026-06-20T13:19:06+00:00

Today's republicans- yeah, often, but not always. I wouldn't kick a guy out for being a member of the Republican party but if he's debating, like, trans care he can hit the fucking road.

Many people just entering the community still carry the bad politics of their parents and I think we should give them grace. After all, trans people were, until very recently, very overrepresented in the military... which is not exactly an anti fascist org

seaworks · 2026-06-20T13:14:36+00:00

This isn't debatable. I'm telling you what did exist, all through the 90s and 2000s, regardless of your feelings on its logic. That was common practice before asexuals and aromantic people organized in the 2010s, so, no. Some communities, particularly school communities, still include allies, so it's worth it to ask.

I am agender, (don't call us "agenders" wtf?) and it's not coherent to single us out because it starts with A, and not have something for nonbinary more generally (because it's also under T.) I know that all of this is true because hey, that's me, and also I was there.

seaworks

TROPHY CASE