Here’s a little exchange from Reddit that I found on ShitRedditSays that basically sums up everything that’s less-than-charming about the site. We start off with a blanket statement of male superiority, followed by an enthusiastically upvoted rape joke, and then we get massive downvoting and a “fuck you” to someone who’s challenging the blanket statement. (If you follow the link you’ll see that Butch_Magnus isn’t the only one jumping on piv0t.)
The context: This is from the Pics subreddit; they’re discussing a “sexist treadmill” with a control panel that looks like this:
Self-hating queers are still queers. The denial of identity and the torture it provides ARE the lived experiences of queers. Unless you want to argue that queer people throughout history who have suffered do not deserve “the label” and that queer is a “new” identity.?
I’ve even heard “queer” as a verb, when something is altered or interpreted to move it away from its original cis heteronormative narrative or message.
Sorry Zhinxy, but I can’t agree. You can be out and still be self-hating, that’s not what’s at issue. Queer is walking the walk, to use an awful cliché. Covering your ass by being straight-acting / cis-acting 24 by 7 is not queer in my book. It may be G/L/B/T or one of those letters, but it’s not queer. And yes, I’m only half-out so I only really should say my queerdom is being an out and proud bisexual (as opposed to a closeted androgyne).
On this thread, telling people that an identity is not theirs and they are appropriating has been treated as identity policing per se, so how do you think people may defend themselves against/call out appropriation without telling people they are appropriating and don’t have a right to use an identity?
I would argue that focusing criticism on actions that are appropriative is more effective than calling identities appropriative.* For example, if someone was trying to redirect an LGBT conversation in a way that didn’t address LGBT concerns, we could call out that conversational tactic. Rather than policing identity, we can more effectively address appropriation via discussion of actions.
*I’m aware that claiming an identity is an action, but it’s more complex than that, whereas taking over the conversation is an action that can be discussed, and the actor’s actions can be criticized, without an intrusive examination of hir queer “credentials.” Border policing only hurts those policed, be they asexuals, bis, femme lesbians, butch gay men, binary-identifying transgender people, etc.
Bagelsan, surely that’s backtracking towards the non-sexual use of the word — which was why it became a useful pejorative word to denigrate homosexuals and trans* people!
@Xanthe: That may in fact be true; perhaps the reclamation of the “strange” aspect of the word is in play in that example. But I certainly didn’t make it up, and I’ve heard it from people that even DSC wouldn’t kick out of the queer club, so I’m just reporting how “queer” has been and can be used in a multitude of ways.
I actually don’t care; yes, it’s not the same history, or even a particularly similar one, but they’re in a position where their orientation is frequently being mocked. I also like big tents. I won’t stand for having the history touched, the fact is that LGBT doesn’t have identical histories either. Again, much more similar than A, but I think the similarities are sufficient and the modern day jackassery good cause to say “Yeah, that’s like us”.
Can I just say I find it hilarious that we’re still debating whether or not asexuals can place in the Oppression Olympics considering the course of this thread? Let’s see, what I’ve learned so far:
-Asexuals are not allowed to self-identify, they have to wait for real queers (That is, non-asexuals or ONLY bi/homo/panromantic asexuals, because those are the only kind that count) to tell them what they are (There really ought to be some sort of ‘splaining term for that)
-Asexuals are thieves
-Asexuals have had it just peachy keen throughout history and in fact the majority of cultures wanted everybody to be asexuals! Any attempts to suggest otherwise will be treated as saying asexuals have had the same historical experiences as everyone else!
-Asexuals can’t be allowed in queer spaces because they will take them over with their narcissistic whining, since it’s impossible for asexuals to care about anything beyond their own orientation
-Asexuals wouldn’t be helped by queer groups anyway, because what the hell could anyone talk to them about? Bi/gay/trans/genderqueer/lesbians, on the other hand, totally understand all of each other’s issues
-Asexuals don’t count as queer because of a list of various oppressions that I’m sure all queer people have read and agreed upon
-Language never evolves, so it’s impossible that queer could develop from a slur against X group of people to a term used to encompassed XYZ people
Jesus Christ. Over the course of this thread I’ve had my identity erased and I have been called a liar and a thief. If it weren’t the fact that it isn’t a majority of the posters doing it I’d probably have decided not to come back here after that.
Go on, swear at me and explain in great detail why I’m wrong. I’m not going to change my stance.
Comrade, I gather there has been identity policing on the thread — and giving a personal definition (which I am actually prepared to interpret quite freely individually) gives the impression there is an actual objective standard to measure “queerness”. The multiplicity of definitions from within the queer space defeats such an idea immediately. If anyone is offended by what I regard as queer/non-queer then I am sorry — but I would not intrinsically object to that person claiming the word queer. My validation of that person isn’t important in that respect, it’s the meaning of the term that happens to be under debate — just as is the term, feminism, under which there a number of schools of feminists.
My question was whether or not the term queer is or should be considered to automatically encompass asexual people in the same way it’s automatically assumed to encompass LGBT people.
But that in itself is a problematic assumption — particularly in some communities of color, “queer” is NOT the identity claimed by people who might be seen by others as such (women loving women, men loving men, etc.) This is why self-identification is so important.
I have a problem with the social stigma criteria for queer identity, because that is what has been used to tell me that as a bi woman I am “not oppressed” and can’t claim a queer identity. Now I’m in a LTR with a woman, people are less inclined to tell me that, but the claim (made above in this thread) that because a bi woman in a relationship with a man can “pass” as het she is not queer is not productive for the QUILTBAG alliance. It also ignores that passing privilege is of course of a privilege but is also very damaging to one’s sense of identity. Everyone in the QUILTBAG alliance has different experiences — many Ls Gs Bs and Ts have different experiences — and no one should have to be interogated about their personal experience of oppression to politically claim an identity that resists heteronormativity.
Xanthe, my comment was a reply to DSC. However, I don’t think it’s possible to claim that your position on someone else’s identity is an abstract, non-personal, non-emotional issue to that person. To you it’s just the definition that’s up for debate, and the asexual who identifies as queer shouldn’t take it personally, but these things are pretty darn personal. They’re identities, after all.
No, most cultures didn’t care if you were asexual if you jumped through specific hoops. That’s a fucking improvement over what the rest of us got; stop fucking complaining that we’re not treating you as equally oppressed when you got a non-violent end that allowed you to express your motherfucking sexuality openly.
Some cultures *did* hold asexuality as the actual thing that is super boss, but they were not a majority.
I don’t know how many times I can say this:
I have never said that asexuals had the same opression throughout history. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Oppression.
Comrade, I know your response was to DSC, but it touches on the point where Zhinxy wanted to draw me out, which is if I say I think X is queer, and Zhinxy says but some of the time ze is not X, then I am put in the position of invalidating hir. The point is Zhinxy doesn’t actually need my validation, because I am not interested in policing the border and checking credentials at all until someone claims that it is X that is not queer.
To give a feminist example, say tomorrow MRAL turns up and says he’s a feminist. Okay, that’s strange and unexpected, whatever. It’s if he then decides to spruik some of the usual anti-women shit that I’d say, that is not feminism as far as I, and I alone, would consider it — who am I to speak for anyone else? If it was me spouting anti-feminist shit would it fly because of claims to be a feminist? I hope not.
Lol, many cultures didn’t/don’t care that you’re almost any sexuality if you jump through certain hoops — like, if gay people don’t have gay sex but instead suffer silently in heterosexual marriages, many societies are perfectly okeydokie with them then, too. :p
I’m not at all saying it’s an identical case, because joining the priesthood (for those who could) vs. getting raped or whatever are obviously different, but “sometimes they tolerated you under certain circumstances!” does not a privileged sexuality make.
Surely you would be called on it, but I doubt everyone would say you couldn’t ever identify as a feminist again? I don’t think anyone’s arguing that queer people shouldn’t be called out for homophobic/transphobic/etc. words and actions.
Lauralot, you’re not the only fucking person in this thread. If you didn’t notice, Bagelsan and Holly did it. I meant you when you added that stupid shit just now, not prior. IT is possible that if I’m not specifying you, I don’t mean you.
Oh for fuck’s sake. There’s just no way to win here is there? Forgive me for assuming that your posts quoting only me and referencing absolutely no other poster might have been in reference to me.
Ironically, before this discussion, I was of the opinion that asexuals faced the least discrimination of any non-hetero sexual orientation. And then this clusterfuck started.
@ Bagelsan: Being called on shit, correct. Definitely.
As opposed to being kicked out of the feminist club. Or didn’t I make that distinction clear enough?
Are you illiterate?
Oh god, spare me. This is almost as stupid as Meriken creole hispanics trying to pretend they’ve had it as bad as mestizo. Or for that matter, a mestizo claiming to have had it as bad as an Amerindian. Last I checked asexuality is legal, go fuck yourself.
Correction: Go fuck off.
I don’t know what it is I did to make you so goddamn hostile.
You know what? I’m done. I’m sick of the dogpiling and the accusations of all the awful things I/we’ve said and the identity erasure. I would have expected this shit from uneducated people or MRA trolls, but I sure has hell didn’t think I’d get it in a feminist space. I’m seriously wondering why I’m even still associating with this site.
Actually, now I’m more confused. Are you saying that you should get kicked out of the “feminist club” if you say something anti-feminist, or not? And how does that translate to sexual identity, exactly? Would you expect to be kicked out of the “woman club” if you said something misogynistic? Genuinely lost here.
I never said being asexual was exactly like being gay or trans.
But I’m not buying this “it was super easy because all they had to do was be a priest” business either.
Lots of cultures didn’t have celibate priests. Others did but only relatively rich kids had the opportunity. Being a priest means you have exactly one career option–ministry–and tough shit if your talents lie elsewhere. Particularly asexual women were likely to have their parents marry them off and end up in poverty if they didn’t marry. And none of this actually allows a person to live as an asexual–they’re still keeping up the charade that they’re attracted to the opposite sex but celibate for some other purpose.
Is this exactly, literally, the same problems other types of queer people had? No. But this whole “oh, asexuality was great because everyone would totally respect you for not having any baser urges” thing is a pile of history-erasing bullcrap.