[rayiner]

There’s not enough queer Black women to make intersectionality more than an academic topic. White people are who give it prominence. Black people themselves are as conservative as republicans on sexuality: https://news.gallup.com/poll/112807/blacks-conservative-repu.... When you see BLM-style advocacy that ties together Black+queer, that’s primarily for white people. Similarly, folks like Ilhan Omar and Linda Sarsour have such prominence not because Muslims see themselves as having common cause with queer people (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres...) but because white people do.

Put differently, Black people and Muslims may advocate in their own self interest, but otherwise believe whatever they believe. Ordinarily, such advocacy would seek to avoid issues that divide the community within itself. White people, by contrast, are not advocating on their own behalf, but on behalf of a variety of groups that are the object of their sympathy. Intersectionality uniquely reflects how such white people see the world.

[washbrain]

What. You realize that much of mainstream culture is drawn from the queer Black community, right? Voguing, house music, slang like "yas queen", "slay", "shade", and "tea", Pride parades, and more.

And that BIPOC cultures have a history of third gender peoples? Two Spirit, fa'afafine, chibados, muxe, sipniq, etc.

To say these things only exist because of white liberal sexuality is patently absurd.

[rayiner]

White people are the ones who control “mainstream culture” and decide what gets absorbed into it. That includes things pertaining to minorities. For example, “BIPOC” is a term popularized by white people to refer to a group that’s most pertinent to white people—people other than themselves. Most people who fit the label “BIPOC” don’t identify with some larger agglomeration of “people who aren’t white.” They identify as black, Pakistani, Cuban, etc.

LatinX is a good example that clearly illustrates the power dynamic. Although it was coined by a Puerto Rican, it is unpopular among Spanish-speaking Americans. If Spanish speaking Americans took a vote, they wouldn’t call themselves “LatinX.” The term has become a prominent label because it appeals to white people.

Third genders actually illustrate how “BIPOC cultures” view gender very differently from white people. Bangladesh, where I’m from, recognizes a third gender. But it isn’t associated with ideas of gender and gender roles being fluid, as it is in white societies. It instead functions to separate sexual minorities from everyone else in a society that is intensely gendered and heteronormative.

The Wikipedia article on third genders actually contains a disclaimer reminding white people not to project their own concepts of gender and sexuality onto superficially similar concepts in other cultures.

[washbrain]

My experience doesn't match yours, we probably roll in different circles.

Agreed on Latinx vs the more pronounceable latin@/latinao.

[rayiner]

We don’t need to rely on our subjective experience with our respective “circles.” There is extensive polling and research on this. LatinX is extremely unpopular, and way more Latinos find the term offensive than use it: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latin.... I suspect most Latinos have never even heard of “Latin@“ or “Latinao.” Most just don’t think Spanish needs to be “fixed.”

BIPOC is similar: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/us/terminology-language-p... (“In a national poll conducted by Ipsos for The New York Times, more than twice as many white Democrats said they felt ‘very favorably’ toward ‘BIPOC’ as Americans who identify as any of the nonwhite racial categories it encompasses.”)

It’s important for white people not to confuse their personal experiences with individual “BIPOC” as proxies for “BIPOC” communities: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/politics/elizabeth-war.... These folks are often activists who align with white power to overcome the majority opinion within their community.