Hi, I'm irritated about the "was he really?" bisexuality coverage.

1. "He advised François Clemmons to hide his sexuality"—yes, but that was a different time, he was still quietly supportive, and he also encouraged him to explore feminine presentation.

2. "He was monogamous"—Separate. Things. Will someone please get these straights out of my journalism?

Fred wasn't perfect. And we don't know he was , yes. But you, heteronormative writer, ain't disproving shit with this.

struggles under a massive weight of and it pisses me off.

If y'all made a world where it was okay to be and monogamous and not have to be just because you were AMAB then maybe we'd not have to grab these threads and hold on to them for dear life, because people would be able to live lives absolutely true to themselves and in many historical cases, _we would know_!

In the meantime, I'm casting my lot in with the queers. Thanks.

@zigg Have to wonder what part of "your sexuality doesn't magically change when you enter a relationship" these donkeys fail to understand. :blobawkward:

@Jo No you see bisexual means literally that you have to have sex with two people, it's right in the word!


From _Wild Beauty: A Novel_ by Anna-Marie McLemore:

"Twice as many paths to trouble, their mothers would whisper. As though their daughters loving men and women meant they wanted all of them in the world. There was no way to tell their mothers the truth and make them believe it, that hearts that loved boys and girls were no more reckless or easily won than other heart. They loved who they loved."

:heart_bi: :heart_bi: :heart_bi:

I saw your rightful rage and then I was continuing to read my current novel and there it was!!

I seem to have missed the coverage on this.

But seriously, if Fred Rogers wanted to keep his sexuality private -- whatever his reasons were, and whatever his sexuality was -- I can't see how it's any of anyone else's business.

@mike_jones @zigg this!!! It's not our business to poke around in his privacy just cause he's gone.

@revolverocelot @mike_jones I can't agree with this.

Our history, which is actively burned (yes, with real fire) and suppressed as a matter of course, is critically important, so we and those who come after us learn they're not alone.

When someone is still living, their decisions are of course paramount. When they've passed on, if what they left behind can help us piece together our history, then that goal is more important, especially because if we don't, any given person is assumed straight.

@zigg @revolverocelot
I would be 100% with you if the proposition was "people should not be assumed straight".

I want to be an ally, but if a person wanted their sexuality to be a private matter when they were alive, it doesn't seem right to ignore that once they're dead. There are plenty of other examples to use against people who want to write alternative sexuality (of whatever flavor) out of history without violating the desires of people who didn't want to be part of that discussion.


@zigg @revolverocelot

And to be clear, I'm not saying that I'm certain you're wrong or that you're evil, just that it *feels* wrong to me to drag a person into the discussion who wouldn't have wanted to be there in life just because it's useful to you.


@mike_jones @zigg the Crux of the matter is of course that we shouldn't be assuming people be straight in the first place but of course hetero society has made it their default.

People don't have to agree with me. I'm not straight either. But I just feel gross removing potentially queer people's agency without a consent they can no longer give, especially when there are bisexual folk out there we could be raising up even higher. But that's just me.

@mike_jones @zigg in 40-50 years I'll likely change my mind, but at the present time the man has barely been in the ground relative to a lifetime. But you know, we are all adults here and allowed to agree to disagree

@revolverocelot Yeah, I hear you and I understand your position.

As for me, I have done a lot of thinking about what others leave behind, having lost a few myself lately, and also the kinds of things the living need, and that's what led me here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 🙂

@zigg Honestly the naysaying about what we know about Rogers really reminds me of all the garbage writers who argue that he ruined a generation by making us kind and sweeter to each other.

Fred was as close to perfect as possible, and he made us all better, and we must celebrate all aspects of his goodness.

@zigg idk if he was bi but all the reasons cishet people use to decide he was or wasn't queer are downright offensive.

And they forget that even in spite of him telling Clemmons to keep his sexuality on the down low, years later they were closer than ever and Mr Rogers was completely accepting of him and Clemmons saw him as a father figure. He was accepted into the Rogers family with open arms.

@zigg jeez. look i'm a nonmonogamous bisexual but monog bis exist too. that shouldn't have to be said. ????.

@mxmatched It's almost as if there's actually room for everyone to be everything they are instead of being put in boxes 🤔

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Queer Garden

A mastodon instance geared towards queer people and their allies. List of instances that are suspended or silenced on Queer Garden.