Categories
douchebaggery misogyny rapey reddit that's not funny!

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

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:

 

 

 

 

339 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
zhinxy
8 years ago

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.?

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

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.

Xanthe
Xanthe
8 years ago

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).

Comrade Svilova
Comrade Svilova
8 years ago

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.

Xanthe
Xanthe
8 years ago

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!

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

@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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

Queer is a reclaimed slur, a slur targeted at specific communities and specific experiences. It is a term that carries with it a history of pain, a history of stigma, a history of these experiences.

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”.

Lauralot
Lauralot
8 years ago

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.

Xanthe
Xanthe
8 years ago

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.

Comrade Svilova
Comrade Svilova
8 years ago

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.

Comrade Svilova
Comrade Svilova
8 years ago

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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

-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!

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.

Lauralot
Lauralot
8 years ago

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.

Lauralot
Lauralot
8 years ago

Oppression.

Xanthe
Xanthe
8 years ago

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.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

No, most cultures didn’t care if you were asexual if you jumped through specific hoops.

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.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

If it was me spouting anti-feminist shit would it fly because of claims to be a feminist? I hope not.

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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

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.

Lauralot
Lauralot
8 years ago

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.

Xanthe
Xanthe
8 years ago

@ 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?

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

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.

Are you illiterate?

I meant you when you added that stupid shit just now, not prior.

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.

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.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

Correction: Go fuck off.

Lauralot
Lauralot
8 years ago

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.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

@ 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?

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.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

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.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

Last I checked asexuality is legal, go fuck yourself.

Being asexual is legal? So is “being gay” or “being black” or “being female” …so if that’s the only criterion for oppression… YAY, WE BEAT OPPRESSION FOREVER! WHOOOOO!

But hey, thanks for switching from “go fuck yourself” to “fuck off” as that is at least not as actively ridiculous a thing to say to an asexual person. That was really big of you.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Oh wait, I see where this conversation has gone.

If you think you have the ability to declare people’s identities invalid and hand out Certificates of Queer Authenticity:

Go fuck yourself.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

Also, celibacy != expression of asexual identity. Seriously. The Popemobile procession et al. isn’t like a fucking asexuality pride parade yanno. -_-

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
8 years ago

Rutee’s posts are just so fucking unpleasant.

ithiliana
8 years ago

When I was co-leading the first ever training on our campus for our new Safe Spaces program a week or so ago, one of my contributions was that the term “queer” was a hotly contested one, with no set definition (one of the evaluations of that training demanded SET meaning for transgender and queer), and that it had to be used with care because there was no agreement in the various communities.

I use the word queer (and have for some years). I used “bisexual” before that. I am currently in a non-sexual lifetime partnership with a straight woman. Most people around us assume we are lesbians (we are lucky to have white and professional privilege as well as tenure).

I have seen MANY people of color reject the word queer (and there are some similar arguments by women of color against reclaiming “slut” because of the different histories of oppressions and social constructions of marginalizd identities). I am an academic, so work with gender and queer theory; there is a long history of tensions between “academics” and “activists” (also too simple a binary) that is in many ways justified, but I am also trying to change my institutional culture (we’re the last university in this part of Texas to start a program; the president says he supports us but not publicly in case of alum backlash).

In the early 1980s, I was in a bisexual support group that was denied meeting space at the Seattle Sexual Minorities Center because the gay man in charge didn’t consider bisexuality to be a “sexual minority.” I was told by lesbans that they’d rather sleep with a straight woman than a bisexual woman. A friend who was married to and have sex with a man but identified as a lesban was a member of a lesbian group who would not accept me (bisexual woman not currently having sex with anybody). I didn’t shift to queer because of these actions–I didn’t identify as queer until I became totally immersed in slash fandom and had some of the best *ahem* responses to slash fiction (that was after I’d been living with my partner for nearly ten years). But those experiences did confirm my sense that I don’t do well with groups beause of all the policing of us/them in every group I’d been in. (The bisexual support group had a hard time keeping women members, the guys told me.)

On a practical level in the here and now, I’m not going to exclude anybody who wants to work to change this incredibly sexist, misogynistic, homo-bi-trans-phobic (only reason most wouldn’t be asexual phobic is they haven’t heard of such a thing) culture. (Remember sexual orientation is not a protected category in Texas.)

On a personal level, I believe that more inclusion and awareness of all the multiple and contradictory ways sexualities and gender identifications operate is important; that the attempt to retrieve histories of what has been repressed, stigmatized, marginalized, and shunned is important, and that there are multiple histories (I gather that there has been a real problem with the erasure of trans people in the Stonewall protests and related activities by “gay histories”). The retrieval of histories is incredibly complicated and should not be used against people today whose identities may not “fit” past structures. For one example, I am interested both theoretically and practically in the question of the urban GLBT community’s inability to acknowledge/recognize rural queerness (Judith Halberstam has written about the binary of urban freedom/rural repression, and how that may be vastly oversimplified).

And most of all, I am against the attempt to single out “queerness” as a single/essentializing identity without any attention paid to intersectionality–I say the same thing about race, gender, and class in those discussions. (As someone heavily influenced by the work by white feminists published in the 1970s which, unlike MRAL, I’ve actually read, I’ve spent the past five years dismantling my transphobia.)

Lauralot and Bagelsan: what you have said makes a good deal of sense to me, and I’m sorry for the pain you experienced here. Conflicts and anger between people who assumed commonality are much more painful than the misogynistic crap from trolls.

Holly: I really love your take a lot of the time, but I’m not so sure that levity and joking was the best way to go in this situation–although that is probably my own bias. OTOH, I have friends who are poly and in what is in effect a group marriage who have to hide it and go through a whole lot of shit–and although I think the term has to be used with care, I do appreciate the possibility of queer heterosexuality.

Darksidecat: I love so much of what you post, all throughout the time I’ve been reading here, and a great deal of what you said in this most recent discussion also makes sense to me. The issues of privilege and appropriation are some of the hardest things to deal with.

I sometimes think that the changes that have been created by the LBGT activists (which, when I think back to my childhood seem enormous, though in absolute terms, there’s still a long way to go) are what have opened up the possibility of acknowledging multiples sexuailities and gender presentations–which does lead to painful debates.

But I’ll take the painful debates over the absolutely blank silence of my childhoood.

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
8 years ago

*Cue “Oh I’m sorry I didn’t know I was here to BE PLEASANT 4 U fuck off go fuck yourself are you stupid/illiterate twisted vile woman hater blah blah blah” type post*

Comrade Svilova
Comrade Svilova
8 years ago

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.

Exactly — which is why I feel that the important thing is to call out ACTIONS (when you talk about X you are redirecting the discussion, taking over this space, etc.) rather than IDENTITIES (you can’t identify this way because I say so!). I’d question MRAL’s feminism, but more importantly address why his specific words were problematic from a feminist perspective.

Sorry I didn’t understand you at first, Xanthe.

As far as the Oppression Olympics discussion goes … I just don’t see why it’s necessary for asexuals to prove anything about the degree to which they experience oppression due to their non-normative sexuality. I don’t hear the asexuals in this thread dismissing LGBT struggles or history. And as someone pointed out, the LGBT experience is not a monolith. My experience and my girlfriend’s experience are very different. Yet we’re still both queer.

zhinxy
8 years ago

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.

That.

….
I’ve also seen other lgb’s “claim” figures like Newton, saying that no record of sexuality likely indicates homosexuality – Which MAY BE TRUE… But erases the very possibility of asexuality. That’s also something we need to discuss in terms of appropriation/ erasures.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

But I’m not buying this “it was super easy because all they had to do was be a priest” business either.

I said it was easier and that there was a non violent end that allowed an expression of that, not that it was super easy or ideal. Read for comprehension, or not at all, and do try to remember that the point of comparison is BEING MURDERED.

Lots of cultures didn’t have celibate priests.

Most religious lives provide an out. Being celibate isn’t a requisite for being a buddhist monk (usually), but a buddhist monk has an excuse to not engage in sexual behavior. There are some that are pretty specific in religion being the opposite, and another small batch that actually had nothing to say on the subject, but by and large, religion lets you do this.

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.

Might be a bias in what I’ve read, but… not generally. It’s all about having conquered their . Again, not as good as “Nope, just don’t give a fuck” and living normally, but a better end than the competition.

Being asexual is legal? So is “being gay” or “being black” or “being female” so if that’s the only criterion for oppression… YAY, WE BEAT OPPRESSION FOREVER! WHOOOOO!
Illiterate jackass. I didn’t say you weren’t oppressed. I said you were less so. Asexuality has *repeatedly been held up as a pinnacle model of sexuality throughout history*, especially in the god damned West. LGBT has had… two spirit people (In a few NA cultures, I think), Hellenistic Greece (for men), and some of East Asia (For men, with the notable exception of South China). That Asexuality isn’t held up as a pinnacle NOW is abundantly clear, and hasn’t for some time, but that doesn’t change that it has faced, and faces, less. And that historical “whoo” probably plays into why it’s not so badly treated now.

Also, celibacy != expression of asexual identity. Seriously. The Popemobile procession et al. isn’t like a fucking asexuality pride parade yanno. -_-

No, it isn’t. It’s catholic pride, as it were. And it’s still a fuckload better than we still get now, especially since you only get social hassle now. Still. I agree that the Queer label applies to you, but don’t pretend for 10 fucking seconds you had it as bad or do now.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Still. I agree that the Queer label applies to you,

Oh shit, you’re not even arguing that and you still managed to drop in that many “fuck off” and “illiterate jackass”es?

I’d hate to see how you treat people you don’t agree with.

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

I’d hate to see how you treat people you don’t agree with.

No you don’t. You only care now that it’s aimed in your general direction. It’s never bothered you before.

Shora
8 years ago

Wow, that was…. quite a callout. Yes, as a cis hetero I have no right to tell queer people how to define anything. I’m not trying to have a cis privilege meltdown on this thread and Darksidecat, I’m sorry for trying to dictate to you what you can and cannot define as a queer person. That was not right of me. However, I don’t think I have to be queer to step up and say someone when you tell someone to their face that they are identifying themselves wrong.

I’m sorry if that was unclear. I don’t think Shora is appropriating, I think she is engaging in outright oppression. A privileged person telling an oppressed person the oppressed person’s identities and how the oppressed person may debate and discuss them and must view them is oppressive.

I’m not trying to tell oppressed people their identities, I’m defending their right to identify themselves. Bagelsan and Lauralot said that they were queer. You said they were not. That’s oppressive, and I don’t think they should have to come to this space and watch people who should be allies their erase them.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

No you don’t. You only care now that it’s aimed in your general direction. It’s never bothered you before.

I guess if you’re a jerk to everyone, that’s… fair?

It makes it kind of hard for people to tell that you aren’t even actually disagreeing, though, since you and everyone you’re calling a stupid horrible asshole actually agree with every part of “asexuals should be able to identify as queer, but their history is not equivalent to gay or trans history.”

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

Thank you, Shora.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

Illiterate jackass. I didn’t say you weren’t oppressed. I said you were less so.

You used the “legality” of asexuality as evidence for our relative lack of oppression, and I objected to that being one of the criteria for distinguishing between asexuality and other minorities that can “legally” exist and comparing their level of oppression. So that makes me an illiterate jackass somehow.

…But hey, at least you acknowledge that I’m a queer illiterate jackass, so I guess I can count this discussion as a win! XD

Rutee Katreya
8 years ago

I guess if you’re a jerk to everyone, that’s… fair?

Yes, you’ve just been such the unattached bystander and I’m being soooooo mean to a random. Or, you know, I’m not treating people who are being assholes with the civility they think they are owed. This isn’t exactly a great big secret of mine, you know; it’s how I treat everyone who annoys the hell out of me on this sort of deal. You’re used ot it not being you because you’re almost never a jackass to a marginalized group. You’re being one now.

It makes it kind of hard for people to tell that you aren’t even actually disagreeing,

Only if you aren’t actually reading. The label, I agree with. The creoles pretending they’re as put upon as the mestizos, not so much. I’ve been clear with this from the start.

everyone you’re calling a stupid horrible asshole actually agree with every part of “asexuals should be able to identify as queer, but their history is not equivalent to gay or trans history.”

You, and I mean you specifically, have been appropriating LGBT history for this, trying to claim it was somehow close because it’s an orientation that sometimes gets shit. Yeah, but it’s also an orientation that’s gotten motherfucking exalted. Repeatedly. It’s not really similar at all to people who generally get killed or arrested. Pretending it’s even close to as bad is motherfucking infuriating.

You used the “legality” of asexuality as evidence for our relative lack of oppression,

Yes. Also, the fact that you’ve been held up as the model, the historical acceptance (sometimes begrudgingly) of asexuality, and the dire straits the rest of us are in, but ALSO the fact that you face no legal barriers at this time, which is a damn sight better than the rest of us.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

I’m bisexual. I’m dating a man now and I’m primarily attracted to men so I guess you can call me a fake trendy bisexual or whatever, but I dated a girl all through high school and was threatened and bullied for it, and in college I dated another girl and got told I was going to Hell.

I know I don’t usually post “as a bisexual person, I think…” because I feel a bit weird about it when my recent history is mostly men, but don’t go telling me that I’m appropriating LGBT history when it’s my history too.

zhinxy
8 years ago

. The creoles pretending they’re as put upon as the mestizos, not so much.

-I think that bringing in racial and ethnic issues here as a direct comparison is inappropriate. Also, I do not know your background, but if you are not creole, I think that could be read as very appropriative and dismissive.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

But whatever. This isn’t even about the queer label any more. This is just about saying things that everyone agrees about (yes, asexuals have been oppressed, no, it wasn’t the same oppression as gay people) in successively more hostile tones.

Although you could check yourself on this bit:

It’s not really similar at all to people who generally get killed or arrested.

I don’t know about arrested, but lots of people (mostly but not all women) have been killed for refusing to marry or refusing to have sex. It’s probably impossible when you’re looking at history to separate sexual people who didn’t want that particular marriage or sex from asexual people, but it’s not fair to say that nobody has ever been killed for not wanting sex.

ozymandias42
8 years ago

I think that there are at least three definitions of queer that got brought up in this thread:

1) Queer as an identity situated in a particular history, epitomized by historically being called “queers,” but also including certain kinds of oppression that are mostly, but not entirely, only suffered by LGBT people.
2) Queer as a catchall identity for people who have non-normative sexual orientations or gender identities. Not only is it shorter and more pronounceable than “LGBTQQ2SIA”, but it also makes clear that we suffer from many related oppressions (heteronormativity, people thinking they have input in what we do with our genitalia) and keep being mistaken for each other (both trans people and asexuals, for instance, are often considered to be sekritly gay or lesbian).
3) Queer as politicized identity. That was the Kate Bornstein thing that started the whole thread off. “Queer heterosexuals” would be those who question, refuse to take for granted and break down the gender binary or sexual orientation trinary.

So, uh, pick your favorite? I guess?

This is why I hate terminology discussions. 🙂

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
8 years ago

Rutee, when you’re calling everyone illiterate and stupid and an asshole no matter how trivial the disagreement, it tends to a. distract from the actual issue, because it’s just kind of distasteful and unpleasant, and b. destroy any semblance of perspective, because no one can tell when you’re actually angry or when you really very strongly disagree with something.

Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
Men's Rights Activist Lieutenant
8 years ago

Also, what the fuck is with this “four hundred years ago we had it worse”? No, four thousand years ago some long-dead gay people had it worse than some long-dead asexual people. You are not one of them.

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
8 years ago

@ozy: Nailed it. Pretty much the entire discussion revolves around people equivocating between all these different meanings.

ithiliana
8 years ago

Ozymandias42: well, I’d prefer actual discussions about terminology to people assuming everybody does or should share their meaning for contested terminologies (one of my favorite queer scholars, Alexander Doty, has a list of something like 8 different meanings for ‘queer’ in academic scholaship, in his great book on queering films). If everybody is using a different meant for queer or feminist or whatever, and nobody says what their meaning is, the fail is doomed from the start. Defining and limiting terms doesn’t mean there won’t be fail, but perhaps it will come a bit later and be a bit less. Maybe.

ozymandias42
8 years ago

Ithiliana: I do recognize the importance of terminology discussions and of defining your terms before you use them, particularly contentious terms like “queer.” I just am not particularly fond of participating in them. 🙂