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:
This shared history thing is getting a bit “queer people hunted the mammoth.”
…That was poorly phrased. But I mean that LGBT folk are not the only people with a history of oppression for not having the “right” sexual relationships.
wtf? What the hell kind of bizzarro world claim is that. Ah, the “you must accept asexual people because of X bi erasure/biphobia”. Bi people don’t actually show statistical reductions in issues against lesbian and gay people (sometimes, they actually show more). The only way for a bi person to get a “pass” is if they never engage in any non-hetero activity, never voice those desires, are deeply closeted, and have their identity totally erased by those around them. The closet it not a privilege.
As to trans people, like I said, there is some overlap and some non-overlap, some shared identity w/LGB etc. some not. Connected does not equal being the same. The ties between LGB etc community and trans community are their own rather complicated things. But cis non-queer asexuals in attempting to claim queer identity aren’t making the claim to those ties at all, and they aren’t making a claim to similar ties. What they claim is stigma based on being asexual/not fully conforming to sexual norms, and that does not give them a right to a claim any more than a large variety of other groups without those ties.
@holly, I see it as the usual issue of people who aren’t part of an oppression trying to claim it, first that it furthers the marginalization of the oppressed group by denying it rights over even its own spaces and priorities, second, that people want to claim the label and access but don’t want to have the experiences, third, that people can and do use it as an attempt to silence the oppressed group in discussions and arguments (“now that I call myself queer, let me ‘splain queerness and everything else to you actual queer people”), fourth, reclaimed terms carry a history of pain and an attempt by outsiders to “reclaim” them does nothing but further that pain, fifth, the appropriaters generally want the help of the group but don’t want to be expected to be helpful/non-stigmatizing towards it. I have seen these things play out with cis hetero kinksters appropriating the queer label. I do think appropriation can be harmful and dangerous.
…
@DSC:
“Ah, the “you must accept asexual people because of X bi erasure/biphobia”.”
I had no idea that this was such a common argument that it deserved sarcasm as a response.
“The only way for a bi person to get a “pass” is if they never engage in any non-hetero activity, never voice those desires, are deeply closeted, and have their identity totally erased by those around them. The closet it not a privilege.”
I fail to see how you can say that a bi-person must be “deeply closeted” in order to not express interest in non-hetero activity. The whole point is that bi people are interested in both hetero and homo relationships. It’s like saying an omnivore has it just as bad as a vegetarian in a culture where meat-eating is the expected norm. It isn’t great, sure, because you can’t express a fundamental part of who you are… but still.
And then you go on to assert that a person who doesn’t eat food at all faces none of the stigma that the vegetarian and the omnivore do. -_-
Because you know, gay people are never reduced to the sex they’re having.
…Asexuals have substantially more of a history of acceptance though, or at least a half-state of it because it’s for totally different reasons. LGBT may not have hunted the mammoth, but it’s much harder to find acceptance of them throughout history. A number of religions provided sufficient excuse for asexuality to be expressed.
Mind, I’m inclined to give them the label; they’ve still faced at least some persecution, and are currently marginalized. But I see precisely where DSC is coming from; Remember the anti=miscegenation laws? Not all sex done wrong is queer. I don’t like zir choice to oppose this, but an overhoned rush to protect oneself from the majority is sort of an unfortunate side effect of being marginalized. No, that doesn’t make it okay.
@DSC: If being transphobic, biphobic, or homophobic is grounds to stop being queer, we’re gonna need to kick out most of those letters. There are plenty of cis transphobes among LGB, heterosexist trans people, and anti-gay or transphobic bi people. LGBT is already the worst alliance in history; It isn’t fair to hold asexual people to a different standard.
Never claimed otherwise. But there are far, far better ways to express it than “YOU’RE JUST LIKE NWO!”
I’m not even going into the debate of whether asexuals can be considered as queer, since I’m still reeling from the revelation that apparently for some people foot fetishists (yes, even cis hetero male ones) or, say, poly doesn’t count as queer.
This metaphor seems troublesome? It may work for some bi people, but for many monogamous bisexual people, they’ll be perceived as either vegetarians or meat-eaters a lot of the time. A bi person in a relationship with someone of the same sex needs the vegetarian option as much as their partner.
I would just like to point out that this thread is an excellent example of how feminists are a hive-mind and an echo-chamber.
“Ah, the “you must accept asexual people because of X bi erasure/biphobia”.”
I had no idea that this was such a common argument that it deserved sarcasm as a response.
“The only way for a bi person to get a “pass” is if they never engage in any non-hetero activity, never voice those desires, are deeply closeted, and have their identity totally erased by those around them. The closet it not a privilege.”
I fail to see how you can say that a bi-person must be “deeply closeted” in order to not express interest in non-hetero activity. The whole point is that bi people are interested in both hetero and homo relationships. It’s like saying an omnivore has it just as bad as a vegetarian in a culture where meat-eating is the expected norm. It isn’t great, sure, because you can’t express a fundamental part of who you are… but still.
And then you go on to assert that a person who doesn’t eat food at all faces none of the stigma that the vegetarian and the omnivore do. -_-
Kirby, I too am in favor of “give asexuals the queer label,” here. But I I think you’re seriously minimizing the issues that face bi folk here, in the service of saying that asexuals “arguably had it worse.”
Being attracted to both genders doesn’t mean we could just take or leave who we wanted to be with, for example. “I’m in love with this woman, here, but it’s okay! I can just be with this man, and since, you know, I’m attracted to men too, it’s not really skin off my back. It’s like how I don’t HAVE to eat broccoli” – Come on, kirby, you aren’t doing anybody any favors, here. 🙁
Lemme get this straight;
Asexuals get to use religion and religious fervor as a cover to actually be asexual, and this is ‘arguably worse’ than bisexuals having to pass as heteros. I see.
@Madolin and Zhinxy:
No, I understand what you both are getting at. I was thinking of bisexuality in the wrong way. *sigh*
My main point was that if the queer label included such a diverse group of people, where each group over history had very different experiences from the rest, how could you accuse asexual people of trying to claim a history that they didn’t experience by wanting to be considered “queer” as well?
I don’t know what asexuals you’re around, but the asexuals I know get religion thrown at them to tell them how sinful they are. They’re meant to “be fruitful and multiply.”
Everyone who fucks funny (incl. not fucking) is a gazork, and they are all invited to the Gazork Club meetings,
Well, my fucking is fucking hilarious, so do I get to be in the club? 🙂
@Rutee:
“Asexuals get to use religion and religious fervor as a cover to actually be asexual, and this is ‘arguably worse’ than bisexuals having to pass as heteros. I see.”
Ok, that is one comparison that is in favor of asexuals having an easier time. But as Lauralot pointed out, this isn’t the case for everyone. Taking my words of “asexuals having an arguably worse time than bisexual people” to mean “asexuals have it worse in every conceivable comparison to bisexual people” is just being dishonest.
I’m aware now that I was thinking of bisexuality in the wrong way, but that still isn’t a very charitable response…
Unless they’re not. There’s sufficient excuse in most Christianities to use devotion to god as a reason not to do so. It’s not just catholic priests that do this. It’s by no means ideal, but it is also honest-to-god asexuality, not passing as hetero. Barriers to entering a religious life can wash this off (Not being brahmin caste for much of Indian history, f’rex), and a substantially smaller number of religions do actually expect kids from their priests, but most give an excuse. It’s far more widespread than queer acceptance, of which I can only think of a few sets of cultures in given periods that had any.
Uh, I never said that was the case for all asexuals?
I really have no idea what’s being argued about here anymore.
To be clear: It isn’t cool that the life was only open to those who entered the priesthood. That is still restriction of choices, and possibly passing in some other aspect of your life.
The use of bi and trans identity as a rhetorical beatstick in these arguments is so common that you pretty much can’t have one without it.
Ensuring no one ever finds out you are bi or have bi desires means being deeply closeted. Not doing this means facing stigma. While bi people in “opposite” sex relationships may have some access to certain legal things because of it, social access is generally predicated on being erased (being taken for hetero and believed to be hetero) and there are also unique challenges. Not to fucking mention that not all bi people are cis and in monogamous “opposite” sex relationships.
No, bi people are interested in bi relationships. Also, cultural models of sexuality that bi people face are completely nonanalogous to your example. Even if you are attempting to argue “passing” privilege (which, again, would certainly not even apply to all bi people, and, again, depends on being closeted), you fail to take into account that “same” sex sexual acts are seen as contaminating culturally and as creating a spoiled identity. If it is known that a person has engaged in “same” sex sexual acts, anything short of totally and completely denouncing them and claiming to no longer have those desires, they are generally taken as permanently marking the person. Again, this basically boils down to an assertion that bi people are privileged by being in the closet and by being considered not to have their desires and/or histories. The only way that bi people avoid stigma and discrimination is if the other person is totally and completely convinced they are not really bi, which is to be deeply closeted and/or totally erased.
grah…
Sorry Lauralot, I did my best. That’ll teach me to comment on things I’m not fully up to speed on… -_-
Celibate priesthood wasn’t an option in every culture. There’s lots (such as traditional Jewish culture, in my personal experience) where everyone is pressured to marry–often in arranged marriages.
I didn’t say it was an option in every culture, and even where it’s present, it’s not ideal to only be able to express your sexuality in that way. But it is an option that is present in substantially more cultures than LGBT acceptance.
To me, “queer” means “my gender and/or sexuality requires several sentences to explain fully.” I mean, if it just means LGBT… why not just say LGBT? o.O
To me, the strength of “queer” is that it encompasses all the edge cases. A cis het boy who has slept with men before. A kinkster who identifies as a straight woman but doesn’t mind being whipped by another woman. A straight man who married a closeted trans man and, post-transition, sticks by his husband’s side because he loves him. Hell, even people who are attracted to “femininity and I don’t care what bits you have” or “geekdom and I don’t care what bits you have.”
And, yes, asexuals and aromantics, too.
Polyamory and kink are more complicated, to me. I count someone as queer if they’re poly as a major part of their identity. My mono fuckbuddy who is technically in a poly network but really dreams of a committed mono relationship… I don’t count that. I’d count the “BDSM is my orientation” people as queer but not the “BDSM is fun but I could have a happy sex life without it” people.
I also like Mandolin’s definition of queer as “people disadvantaged by compulsory heterosexuality.” I wouldn’t mind working with that one.
tl;dr: Sexuality and gender are complicated and “queer” is one of the few words I know that acknowledges how complicated it is, and I really don’t want to make it be a synonym for LGBT.
Thanks for your post, ozy. I agree with every word.