“Men run faster than women.” “Hence rape.” Or, Reddit in a nutshell.

Sexually assertive cis hetero women are also seen as “doing sex wrong” and they are also not queer. Promiscuous cis women are seen as “doing sex wrong” and are also not queer. Cis hetero people with fetishes are also seen as “doing sex wrong” and are still not queer. Polygamous Mormons are seen as “doing sex wrong” and are not queer. Not all stigmatized identities/acts around sex count as queer.

Also, if asexual people are not “allowed” to identify as queer, isn’t there a danger of them being even *more* marginalised and invisible then they are already? Most people these days “know” what it means to be gay and bisexual, but asexuality is sometimes believed not to exist at all!

Apply that same argument to cis hetero kinksters. That’s appropriation, plain and simple. Queer people don’t have a special burden to sacrifice our own interests, communities, and struggles to serve others. Insofar as we have a burden not to stigmatize things like fetishes, cis heteros have it as well.

Also, marginalized people can co-opt experiences of other marginalized people. This sometimes happens with white queer people and black people’s experiences, for example. Then again, I don’t think asexuals are marginalized in the broad sense, especially not in relation to queer people. Queer people don’t have social power over non-queer people, and society does not privilege sexual queer people over less sexual ones (quite the opposite, in fact, displays of queer sexuality including things as simple as hugs or hand holding can result in massive negative consequences). This applies to sexualities of certain other groups as well. It is not true that, for example, being more sexual rather than less is considered socially good for people with disabilities, with women (though there is more leway there), and with a number of other groups. Not all stigmatized identity rises to the level of oppression or marginalization. Not that it makes it okay to perpetrate that stigma in general, but it does affect priority and other issues.

Where would a single asexual student go to discuss their concerns and meet understanding, if not to an event or organization that are outside of the heterosexual norm?

They can make their own, instead of trying to derail and co-opt the extremely few social spaces where queer peple can discuss their desires and issues. In addition, asexuals and the asexual community has its fair share of homophobes and transphobes, and the majority of queer people I have spoken to around this have not found that cis non-queer aces are any less likely to be hateful of queer and trans people than cis heteros, which make issues around co-option even more glaring. They aren’t being asked to be allowed to have their own space, they are being asked to be able to force queer and trans spaces to center them and their issues over queer and trans people and our issues. I don’t see an issue with cis non-queer people being told they are not welcome at trans or queer exclusive spaces. In queer events or spaces where non-queers are allowed or welcomed, that would be an issue, because then they would be being singled out from other non-queers for exclusion.

But what about the fact that some asexual people are romantically (but not sexually) attracted to members of the same gender? Are they not queer?

I already addressed that issue in this discussion and have tried to be specific about when I was applying something to cis non-queer asexuals. Being asexual doesn’t make you queer any more than being kinky does, but a person can be both kinky and queer, and in some cases asexual people are also queer, but they are queer because they are queer, not because they are asexual.

Cassandra, I was going for “privileged.” Asexuality is a form of marginalization that you do not understand and yet you’re trying to categorize it despite your ignorance, and debating disallowing asexual people from claiming an identity despite not “grok”ing their experiences at all.

Then again, I don’t think asexuals are marginalized in the broad sense

They can make their own, instead of trying to derail and co-opt the extremely few social spaces where queer peple can discuss their desires and issues.

They aren’t being asked to be allowed to have their own space, they are being asked to be able to force queer and trans spaces to center them and their issues over queer and trans people and our issues.

darksidecat, I cannot tell you to “fuck off” hard enough. You’re a goddamn bigot, and not even a particularly rational one. “They are queer because they are queer”? That’s a fucking well-thought-out definition you have there; glad to know such exquisite consideration was put into your sweeping exclusion of asexual people from the identify of “queer” which you apparently own. You seem to be fond of repeating your ridiculous assertions as if that might serve in place of a convincing argument. It does not. Perhaps you should go back to the cakes vs. steak comparison, as it was at least an original denial of queer identity.

As a fellow queer person I think you are so full-to-the-brim of bullshit you have to keep your chin tilted up as you talk. Truly your appalling behavior is the best reason for asexuals to stay the hell away from other QUILTBAGers I’ve read so far, so congratulations on that; I suppose that making your group appear completely odious is a tactic for keeping undesirables out, though maybe not the cleverest one.

This whole defining queer conversation reminds me of a story.

I was living in a small, very conservative town, and I had a little side project doing a website for a local bar. One of the waitresses came out of the closet and brought her partner to visit. For many people this was the first gay couple that patrons had ever met*, and much to my surprise people were very respectful (at least when in earshot). However the conversation kept coming back to “Who’s the man and who’s the woman.”

Finally after about an hour of this coming up again and again. It was clear that Waitress(Sally) and Girlfriend(Sarah) were getting uncomfortable because they were kind of at a loss to explain such a thing in the context of their relationship. So, irritated because I was the only sober person in a bunch of drunken question-repeaters and because I think gender roles are BS, I said “It’s simple. Sally is the “Sally” and Sarah is the “Sarah.” True story.

Anyway, I guess this pops in my head because, although I know it is generations away, I really look forward to the day that these kinds of labels are considered quaint. The day when “there are people who prefer to fuck penises,” “there are people who fuck vaginas,” “there are people who don’t care,” and “there are people who don’t fuck.” **

—
*There were a few other folks that hung around the bar, but never brought their significant others around. It was kind of a detente… “we accept you do that, but don’t want to be reminded about it.” Which was about as classy/accepting as some of the patrons seemed capable of being. *SIGH* Not a good time in my life.

** Yes, I’m sure I’m leaving out some options. I apologize, it is either unintentional or something I couldn’t find a way to express in the simple rhetorical formula I’m using. I admit that I suck, and am willing to take suggestions.

I think it means “not heterosexual and cis” basically. I haven’t seen a more consistent definition from anyone else yet.

I’m not trying to categorize it. You’re categorizing it (as queer) and I’m going “does that categorization make sense given what we as a society consider queer to mean?”

My ass I am. I’m identifying as it, and you’ve taken that opportunity to get into a long philosophical debate about whether or not you think I deserve to have that identity respected.

Um, Bagelsan? I’m queer too. I’m allowed to ponder what the word means. If you identify as queer then cool – in general I respect people’s right to identify however they want (there are exceptions, such as Sarah Palin calling herself a feminist), so if you identify as queer then I will refer to you as such. But people who belong to a group are allowed to speculate about what it means to be a member of that group, what the descriptive term that refers to the group means, etc.

It does seem odd to me, linguistically speaking, to define an identity in terms of “things I am not” rather than “things I am”, which is part of why I’m asking what other people mean by “queer”. I’m curious about whether most people are defining it as “I am not X”, or as “I am X, Y, or Z, or possibly all of the above”.

CassandraSays – I would rather define more people as queer than fewer. I think the difference between “queer” and “LGBT” is that “queer” is a way more inclusive and fuzzier term.

But I also don’t want to be the Boss Of Queer and I’m nowhere near involved enough with the queer community to be issuing rulings on it, either.

I think “queer” really needs to be an umbrella term for everybody whose sexuality falls outside the realm of, speaking very generally, what would not surprise your grandma.

But that kinda makes everyone queer, because very few people actually behave as normatively in bed as they represent themselves to in their public sexual identity. That’s the problem with using it as an umbrella term. Outside of spaces where terms like “cis” even have any currency (I had never seen that term until I started reading comments on this site, and I’m relatively up on LGBT issues for someone of my generation), “queer” roughly means gay. I can’t tell you how many times my asexual, butch-dressing, hetero female friend has been assumed to be a lesbian simply because of how she dresses, and from her perspective being called “queer” would just reinforce that normative mis-labeling.

What I’m saying is that I think some of these debates are currently internal to LGBT subcultures, academia, and other spaces like that, and they’re not going to translate well into the larger culture without that larger culture evolving from where it is now. So to be perfectly clear, in the broader culture right now labeling asexuals as “queer” is in many cases going to exacerbate, not mitigate, some of the stigma associated with asexuality (not that that stigma is necessarily the worst of its kind, it’s just an example of the culture clash I’m pointing to).

Again, social justice is hard. Let’s go shopping!

Goddamn, what a depressing thread to read first thing in the morning. It’s great to know that I don’t “count,” I’m not marginalized despite evidence otherwise, and by wanting to discuss my orientation and place in society I’m “co-opting” safe havens from “real” queers.

It’s funny that this is the first thing I’ve ever read on this site that really hurts me, despite all the horrific misogyny I’ve read since coming here.

@Lauralot:

Don’t worry. At least one person here knows you exist. 🙂 Funny enough, my former girlfriend identifies as asexual. It was kinda frustrating for me, because I am quite sexual myself, and it took me far too long to figure out that we didn’t click like that. Good news is we’re still very good friends. Bad news is now I have to do some work to find someone to cuddle again…

It’s conversations like the one between DSC and Baglesan that made me want to write my little song earlier. We really don’t want to get in the habit of saying “you don’t fit into this particular label, therefore your problems with the status quo don’t matter.” Fuck, I’m a straight white male from a high-income family… the very bottom of the ladder when it comes to discussions on privilage, racism, classism, pretty much any -ism you like. Imagine if I had to try to prove I was marginalized in the same way as women in order to be included in feminist circles like this one, and to complain about misogyny.

I suppose I could talk about my atheism… Obama doesn’t mention God in his thanksgiving address and suddenly it’s some big scandal. *shakes head*

darksidecat, I cannot tell you to “fuck off” hard enough. You’re a goddamn bigot, and not even a particularly rational one.

Why don’t you fuck off and stop appropriating others identities.

“They are queer because they are queer”? That’s a fucking well-thought-out definition you have there; glad to know such exquisite consideration was put into your sweeping exclusion of asexual people from the identify of “queer” which you apparently own.

I don’t own it alone, but queer people in general do, and you aren’t one of them. You don’t get to tell us we have to let you claim our histories and experiences. You are offended? Well, guess what, I find your attempt to appropriate others’ oppressions and identity offensive. And it’s no denial of queer identity to say so, what it is is a denial of your right to appropriate it.

@Cassandra, the linkage of trans and LGB, etc. sexualities is a historio-political issue. Part of it is that some trans people’s sexualities could only count in the latter category (a nonbinary identified person who is only attracted to men can only have those desires named hetero if they are being misgendered), part of it is that people who transition later in life may have spent significant portions of their lives living and doing work in those communities, part of it is a shared history of being affected by certain legal and religious punishments (straight trans people were not immune to sodomy laws, crossdressing laws often affected both groups heavily, same sex marriage bans often affect trans people, etc.), part of it is that our cissexist culture generally insists on conflating the two, part of it is that when dealing with history or other cases where one has limited ability to ask the person themself the two are sometimes rather hard to distinguish (for example, FAAB people who had sex with women and often lived socially as men during the middle ages, are they properly discussed as trans men or as cis women loving women who dressed as men for social benefits, it’s not so clear in a lot of cases, yet getting caught meant getting killed as a witch a lot of times either way). The origins of the modern use of queer come from a school of thought trying to deal with historical issues around how we conceive historical figures and figures from other cultures when discussing those desires, those “loves that dare not speak their name”. Since the habitual western way of naming sexual desires is derived from extremely gendered notions, the fact that trans identities would come up in discussing namings of sexuality and in studying of history is not particularly surprising. I do think desires, romantic, sexual, at times political as related to the first two, are a core part of the concept of queerness, and that trans desires (or lack thereof) that get swept up in that attempt to build community which otherwise might not fit may still have a claim because of those historical, social, and cultural connections to the issues. I would not use the term queer to refer to the desires a straight binary identified trans person, or an asexual trans person, unless they considered them such themselves, but due to all of those earlier historio-cultural issues, I think they have grounds to claim their identites and desires as such even though an otherwise similarly situated cis person would not.

Oh, and Bagelsan, fucking is fucking, desire is desire, reducing queer sexual identity to fucking is basically pulling an NWOslave and claiming things like that male prison rapists are all gay or bi.

….by wanting to discuss my orientation and place in society I’m “co-opting” safe havens from “real” queers.

Wanting to discuss it in general isn’t, having an expectation of a right to use of queer spaces and queer identity because of it is, and the latter was the original context.

Apparently making sure the borders are properly policed is more important than helping someone else, perhaps accidentally. Good to know.

Oh, and Bagelsan, fucking is fucking, desire is desire, reducing queer sexual identity to fucking is basically pulling an NWOslave and claiming things like that male prison rapists are all gay or bi.

All people who disagree with you are hateful trolls. Nice.