[en][blog] we are inclusive

.gitignore

@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
 
 /cache
 /static/card
+/static/img-local/
 
 # Created by .ignore support plugin (hsz.mobi)
 ### Node template

locale/en/blog/we-are-inclusive.md

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+# Yup, we are inclusive
+
+<small>2021-08-31 | Collective</small>
+
+<figure class="float-lg-end">
+    <img src="/img-local/blog/inclusivity.png" class="hero" alt="I want to exclude one of you. | Well then you aren't welcome | So much for inclusivity!">
+    <figcaption><small><a href="https://twitter.com/KatysCartoons/status/1432641089249452033" target="_blank" rel="noopener">By @KatysCartoons on Twitter</a></small></figcaption>
+</figure>
+
+We are a queer collective. All of us know perfectly well what it's like to have our identities
+questioned, ridiculed and invalidated. And we definitely don't want to make our queer siblings suffer the same.
+That's why we're inclusive. When we say ACAB, that also includes the _identity police_.
+
+Our team of volunteers creates (among many other things we do) a tool to create a card where you can present
+your pronouns, names, identities and more.
+We're not policing what people put there, as long as it's all in good faith and not harmful.
+So we are banning for example people who use [the „Super Straight” flag](https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Super_Straight),
+which is an obvious transphobic [dog whistle](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog%20whistle),
+or who use the flag of the Third Reich, or who use the n-slur in their profiles…
+
+But we'd never dare to ban a person just because they put both the bi flag and the lesbian flag in their profile.
+Queerness isn't a set of neatly defined boxes that everybody has to nicely fall into.
+Our definitions might differ slightly, our definitions can change in time (as does everything in language).
+Even a brief look at [the LGBTA Wikia](https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Lesbian) confirms
+how ambivalent and rich in history the term “lesbian” is:  
+
+> Lesbian is a term that defines queer attraction to women.
+> This attraction is most commonly used as exclusively wlw/nblw attraction,
+> as communities surrounding exclusive wlw/nblw have become the primary part of the lesbian community.
+> However, there is no one perfect definition that encompasses all experiences of lesbianism.
+> This term includes butch, femme, non-binary, anonbinary, cusper, and multigendered people.
+> The majority of lesbians are exclusively wlw/nblw, including all NBLW, WLNB, and NBLNB attractions.
+> However, despite this, for some lesbians, the attraction is not exclusive,
+> as m-spec lesbianism (especially bi-lesbianism) is a historically seen identification.
+
+There's plenty of perfectly valid reasons to use the label “lesbian” or “gay” along with an m-spec label,
+out of which probably the most prominent example is the
+[Split Attraction Model](https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Split_Attraction_Model_(SAM))
+– used mostly by a-spec people, but not necessarily restricted just for them.
+It's perfectly possible to be, for example, biromantic and homosexual, or bisexual and homoromantic.
+
+We don't think it's our place to police people's identities.
+We don't necessarily all define the same labels in the same way,
+and we're not saying that you can't have a more strict definition of lesbian,
+but we're not going to tell people that they can't put “bisexual” and “lesbian” in their profile,
+if it makes sense under their own definition,
+which has also historically varied and is more complex given the various attraction models.
+No more so than we would say one has no right to identify as non-binary lesbian
+which some would also claim to be lesbiphobic.
+
+We're a multilingual site that has profiles of people from different countries and cultures,
+where the same or equivalent terms might often be understood differently
+and have slightly different predominant definitions.
+
+Just because we don't police whether people use the more narrow or the more broad definition of a word,
+doesn't mean we're attacking in any way the people who use the narrow one.
+The very existence of multiple definitions doesn't mean that one of them necessarily has to be evil or incorrect.
+
+We might not agree on this, but the least you can do is assume our good faith, as we assume yours.
+Even if you don't understand or don't agree with someone else's description of their identity,
+don't automatically assume it's done in bad faith or with any intent to harm –
+maybe their experience of gender, sexuality and romantic attraction is just too complex to fit in one definition.
+
+Let's not turn queer people against each other.
+Let's not alienate other parts of our community just to feel better about ourselves.
+The more we fight internally, the more power our oppressors have against all of us.