Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

And now we get the dubious distinction of being the timeline where a straight cis man can say "Oh, I'm queer because I have no romantic feelings for the women I fuck" and not be clocked as the obvious threat he is.

2

Pop wrote

roughly my position

there will be abusers in every identity, doesn't make the whole thing illegit

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Sure, if you ignore the entire power dynamic between straights and lgbt folk that necessitates an lgbt community in the first place. Bi and trans folk already deal with enough shit from rich gays and lesbians throwing us under the bus as it is. We don't need entitled straighties doing it too in our own hard-won spaces. If you don't experience same/similar gender attraction or some level of gender nonconformity, you're not LGBT. That's not gatekeeping, that's definitional.

0

Pop wrote

aro people are a thing, and its LGBTQIA+
Lopping off some letters because other queers worked hard for their spaces doesn't mean they aren't 'nonnormal' sexualities that don't come with their own particular modes of oppression

https://everydayfeminism.com/?s=aromantic for some further reading for you to choose from

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote (edited )

It's LGBT. Queer as identity has always been a point of reclamation against a word that's targeted us. Intersex folk may or may not identify as queer to begin with, and the ones that do usually fit themselves under the T by refusing to cooperate with their coercively assigned gender.

There isn't an oppression in not wanting to fuck in a puritanical society that isn't a direct consequence of homophobia and misogyny. Ace folk will never have a law passed mandating they breed or go to jail, they will never be targeted by serial killers for their aceness or left buried in a pauper's grave without their true name on it because their aceness made society uncomfortable with itself. What they face is not oppression, because an ace cishet can live a perfectly happy life stomping on the faces of the LGBT folk below him.

But sure, let's keep inviting the people who are totally kweer you guys to our spaces so they can whinge about how gross and icky same-gender displays of affection are and use our words against us while claiming they can't possibly be homophobic/transmisogynistic because they're queer too. While LGBT aces should be allowed in LGBT circles and are entitled to the meager protections we can provide, they are entitled to them by virtue of being LGBT. An ace+aro or a cishet ace/aro is not LGBT, and should have no such expectation.

LGBT has never meant 'non-normal' and holy fuck what a heterocentric thing to say. It's meant and continues to mean a confederation of sexual and gender minorities directly oppressed by decades of violence against us.

0

Pop wrote

I think we'll have to agree to disagree for now since I've run out of gas for this

-1

thekraken wrote

I don't see why such a person would self-identify as queer. Nor why they would be a 'threat' if they decided to.

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote (edited )

Because entryism is a time-honored tactic of oppressors, and straighties when they're not trying to kill us act like the LGBT is a fun social club and not the collective resources of oppressed folk trying to survive. Inclusionist rhetoric allows oppressors into queer spaces, meaning even our few refuges now have cishets using our limited resources and making the environment unsafe. Aces and aros experience no direct material oppression from being ace/aro, and only incidentally intersect with the LGBT when they experience some form of same gender attraction or are not cis. As such, the inclusionist rhetoric that 'ace =/= cishet' while simultaneously maintaining that the split-attraction model allows for the existence of cishetero-romantics that are somehow distinct from cisheterosexuals, is destructive and allows for cishets to take over our spaces even more than they already have. I mean, fuck. Pride's already a corporatized, cop-loving parody of its roots. It's essentially telling the people with their boots on our neck that they don't need to move their foot, and we actually like it there.

e: If I have to spell it out for you why letting a cishetero man in a queer space is dangerous, ask literally any queer woman. The last thing we need is some 'aro' dudebro insisting lesbians just haven't met the right man, bi women are sexual unicorns or indecisive, and trans women and nonbinary femmes are 'confused men' or 'the best of both worlds'. Given the proclivity of cishet men for violence against literally anything that makes them feel insecure in their masculinity, would you really want someone like that in the places we're supposed to be safe from our bosses, parents and straight society at large?

1

thekraken wrote

I am sure some asexuals that have people insist that they are 'broken' or 'have not yet met the right man/woman' might disagree with you about the lack of direct material oppression due to being ace. As for your point in regards to aro people, it could be valid. Though to be frank, an aro cishetero is still hetero, and so, imo, should not classify themselves as queer in any way.

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Find me one ace/aro who's been murdered explicitly for being ace. The rare cases that could qualify all have other traits that put them in a vulnerable population. Aces are not 'broken', they are valid, but they are not systemically oppressed or victimized. They don't get murdered if someone clocks them. They don't have laws pushed to make it impossible for them to survive.