The latest frothing at the mouth on "Trans Twitter" is whether people in BDSM/Kink dynamics should be at Pride, specific if they should be at Pride in "fetish wear."
A LOT of trans people, at least on Twitter, seem to not really have any idea, beyond stereotypes, of what "kink" actually is, or how people who practice BDSM might present that in public, at what is essentially a 'vanilla' event.
I believe people should be allowed to present their dynamic in a non-sexual way at the main, public Pride.
I believe that Pride needs to do a hell of a lot more about including 18+ areas where sexuality, gender, and identity can be explored in the full breadth of itself - including how to have sex as a person with a particular body, as a person with particular, lawful inclinations. Pride shouldn't be a tourist opportunity, and neither should it be something that may bring already marginalised individuals into disrepute.
People who practice BDSM are marginalised, even if only for their kink aspect.
BDSM clubs and events still aren't able to open under UK lockdown.
In-person 'Munches' - the low-key social gatherings which tend to be newbie-friendly, and where people can safely meet and get to know others, are still very restricted, with many only online - which isn't for everyone, and often results in people who already know each other talking to each other exclusively, while newcomers sit watching a silent screen.
Local councils, which have no problem licensing "gay clubs", will frequently threaten venues that host BDSM events with revocation of their licence - because it is assumed that people are having sex/turning up with genitals exposed in those places.
Tellingly, a lot of trans Twitter seems to assume the same.
"Personally, it would make me hella uncomfortable."
"I'd be really weirded out by it, tbh."
The above are just two tweets from people on trans Twitter about the idea of kinksters at Pride.
Well, you know what? Seeing people with their shirts off, their tongues down each others' throats, wrapped in flags, makes me uncomfortable. Extroverts make me uncomfortable. Crowds make me uncomfortable.
I simply don't go to Pride.
I believe people into BDSM should be able to present their identity and dynamics at Pride, as long as their genitals are covered, and they are not behaving in an obviously sexual manner.
I believe NOBODY at the main, public aspect of Pride should be behaving in an obviously sexual manner.
I would prefer everyone - including those who practice BDSM - to be fully clothed.
Sexualising peoples' identities, without their consent, is a big problem for many LGBTQ+ people, who really should know better.
The main objection seems to be "But kink is inherently sexual...."
Actually, it's not - and it says more about the individual making that statement than anyone who is involved in kink.
Someone fully clothed, walking their fully-clothed human pup on a leash? I don't see that as being any different to the half-naked gay couple snogging as they wrap themselves in rainbow flags.
A Sadist, neatly dressed in suit trousers, sleeves of a button-down shirt rolled back,tie knotted beneath a leather waistcoat, with their masochist walking demurely beside them in a skirt or trouser suit, a collar around their neck, is no different to the wild-haired, multiply-pierced, proliferation of actually quite rubbish tattoos on display trans and Queer people who prance along with the parade.
Two Leathermen, in chest harnesses and leather jeans, would look no different to anyone else at Pride - the event, remember, where people often wear very little other than their flag of choice, and enough clothing to remain "legally decent."
If you say "But because they do have sex in ways I think are weird, and that make me uncomfortable, and because they look very obviously different when they're dressed like they do, they shouldn't be at Pride, because what about children and minors attending?" you will find yourself standing with the same people who would object to visibly trans people at Pride. To visibly intersex people at Pride. To, potentially, visibly disabled people at Pride. To poly people showing physical affection to all their partners at Pride.
If you say (rightly, in my opinion) "they can be at Pride, but they shouldn't be being physical with each other at Pride", then you have to ask why you're okay with vanilla LGBTQ people often stopping barely short of engaging in actual sex acts at Pride. You have to ask why you're okay with vanilla folk prancing around in very little but a flag, but it's "too much" to have someone wearing a pup mask, a chest harness, or a collar.
And that brings us on to the question of what constitutes "fetish wear".
A "fetish" is anything a person finds arousing.
For many people in the BDSM community, that's actually as likely to be a smart suit, high heels, sheer stockings, or the way someone looks in blue denim as latex and leather.
Not all of those on the submissive side of the slash wear collars, and many of those who do wear collars that wouldn't immediately be obvious as a sign of any kind of dynamic at all - they would pass, unremarked, as an alt fashion choice.
The reaction against chastely presented kinksters being openly at Pride leads on to another problem - the creeping fringe belief that "It's perfectly fine to transition to be a fetish." (I've seen one person state this publicly on Twitter, know one person "in real life", personally, who did transition for fetishistic reasons, one whose reasons were borderline fetishistic (although in that case, they are not someone I know personally - I know of them through the wider local community, I don't know them myself, so I won't comment on them) and one person, known to me through my wife, who knows them very well (they're her blood sibling) who is presenting an online persona that is very much about fetishising trans experience (and which actually includes outright deception, and strong indications of a predatory nature my wife has experienced from them firsthand, as well - but, since they present as uwu femme, and talk about getting high, as well as being a bully, and "cute li'l geeky trans girl gamer", everyone laps their content up, and misses the blank stare in their eyes in the "I'm so sexy" selfies they post.
I've known a range of different trans people in my life.
The one constant is none of us have dead eyes when we're posting photos of ourselves in clothing we've chosen.
And, in this individual's case, their eyes aren't dead in photos of them where they took a male role.
Can people be having "gender feels" without actually being trans? Yes - and I feel social media can do at least as much harm as good for these individuals, making them feel they have to remove all the nuance of their experiences and feelings to "be accepted". Social media, far, far more than medical transition or puberty blockers, is what "rushes people to the conclusion that they're trans."
You are not necessarily trans just because you're not cis.
There are a raft of ways gender can be - trans, cis, and non-binary are just three of an infinite range of possibilities, but people aren't given the space to find their identity - an off-the-peg identity is thrown at them, and they're hustled and hurried along with others who hold that identity.
Both my wife's sibling, and the trans woman I know personally who admitted her reasons for transition were far more along fetishistic lines than any other, are predators. The latter actually said "I get off on knowing I can be around naked women, checking them out, and no one can do anything about it." In the case of my wife's sibling, they have violated consent and crossed boundaries repeatedly in interactions with her, including on one occasion pinning her to the ground with a knife to her throat.
People who transition for fetishistic or hypersexual reasons are often predators, and they are always dangerous to the trans community - because they are the demons society points to and says we all are. They are the proof that none of us can be trusted, and that nothing about trans experience is suitable for children and minors.
It is not a problem that trans people are sexual.
It is a problem that some people who claim to be trans use it for the pursuit of harmful, inappropriate sexual gratification.
It is a problem that a significant amount of people who detransition go on to align themselves with TERFs.
It is a problem that so few people in the trans community are willing to be elders, seeing the term as being synonymous with "old", in a culture that, in the past 5yrs, has come to obsessively and toxically glorify not just youth, but childishness, and that, therefore, the attitude has become "Never question anyone! If someone says they're trans, then they are! You don't get to police someone's gender!"
It's true - you don't. None of us do.
But gender isn't a game.
It's not dress up and pretend.
It's real, and the expression of it has real consequences.
Going back to BDSM, the reason that it is strictly 18+, even in countries where the age of consent is 16, such as the UK, is because the dynamics involved in BDSM are intense, complex, and emotionally about as involved as you can get.
I've been involved in BDSM since I was 19 - the same age, incidentally, at which I formally began my transition to a gender that had been consistent since I was 9.
I started out the way I'd advise anyone to start out - messing about with a consenting partner of my own age.
We read medical textbooks together, learning where to hit and where to avoid, as well as what risk factors to be aware of. We took things slowly, we read what scarce resources we could access over 15yrs ago, and we checked in with each other, always and constantly.
Even now, if there's something new I want to bring into my Sadism, I'll seek out information from more experienced Sadists. I'll ask questions of genuine elders. I'll read extensively around the topic.
Kinky folk should be at Pride, because, very often, they're the only people who are mature enough to offer an elder's guidance to those whose identities may not be entirely cisgender, whose preferences fall firmly on the "alt" spectrum.
Kinky folk should be at Pride because we are used to being active, but non-sexual - we do it all the time, obliged, as we often are, to meet in entirely vanilla, public venues for our Munch events. Many gay and lesbian people, particularly, see Pride as existing for them to be publicly, physically demonstrative - which can be uncomfortable for asexual and aromantic people.
Asexuals, who have often been coerced into sex, raped by partners, sexually assaulted to "prove that you'll like it, really."
Who have had their physical and mental health interrogated by clinicians.
Who have been told they're not welcome in the LGBTQ community, because that community has feelings about those who are able to be non-sexual.
Aromantics, who have been told they're "selfish".
Who often have to face the prospect of aging, of becoming infirm, alone - because too few people understand the kinds of love that exist outside of romantic love.
Personally, I feel there is a need, not, as many on trans Twitter are calling for, an "18+ Pride", but rather for an under-eighteens Pride. Pride as it stands should evolve to cater to adults, centring education, exploration of sexualities, genders, and identities between the cracks, supporting recovery from addiction and from dsyfunctional relationship dynamics, and another, separate event should arise that allows younger people who are emerging into their own identities and sexualities to see those safely represented in public, and to safely explore them publicly.
When you simultaneously say "so what if people transition for fetishistic reasons?" and "Kink shouldn't be at Pride", you are saying that trans people are not people those under 18 should see. You are saying that, because some trans people transition as enacting a fetish (and you're apparently okay with that), and fetish anything is "adult only", children cannot be trans.
I've been accused of "blaming trans people for transphobia" because I'm opposed to people who transition for fetishistic or hypersexual reasons.
And yes - if you are a harmful person, I AM blaming you for peoples' assumptions that anyone who they perceive as being "the same as" you is ALSO harmful.
Die mad at it - because I'm not the one who's claiming children can't be trans.
Any identity is complex, and multifaceted.
That's why all communities need elders - so those new to an identity or experience can be calmly, safely, and supportively walked through it, as they explore whether it is, in fact, their identity.
I'm an asexual trans man, and an asexual Sadist, who prefers modesty for both himself and his partner/s.
I'm also not an entitled arsehole, and am fully aware that I have no right to demand modesty of those not involved with me.
I dislike the general experience and attitude of Pride - so I don't go.
(We do, in fact, need a discussion about how unwelcoming and unsafe Pride is for disabled people, ace/aro spectrum people, people with anxiety, people with sensitivity issues, and many others - but that's a blog for another time.)