Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

meo wrote (edited )

Oh, I didn't realize there was a certain oppression threshold you had to meet to be part of the queer community. Ace people are negatively affected by commonly held views about sexuality, so why should they be excluded just because they're not oppressed enough (apparently)?

Also, excluding ace people for the fact that cishet ace people might be shitty makes no sense, considering you can't trust most cis queers to not be shitty about trans people. I can't think of a single logical reason for singling out ace people like that.

14

snake wrote (edited )

Straight women are also negatively effected by commonly held views about sexuality, as well as men who aren't 'macho'.

Ace people do not face oppression that is even similar to what gay and trans people face, and the queer community is essentially defined by that oppression and the response to it. Ace people have historically never been a part of that oppression or the resistance to it, and cishet aces are still far more privileged than gay or trans folx are. There's no reason to dedicate queer resources to cishet ace people.

Its not about some "threshold" but that's literally what "queer" has been defined by.

−6

meo wrote (edited )

Straight women are also negatively effected by commonly held views about sexuality, as well as men who aren't 'macho'.

This is entirely ignoring that the difference between these two examples and ace people is that ace people are inherently a sexual minority.

The rest of what you're saying still boils down to “ace people just aren't systemically oppressed enough”. You think queer should be defined by the oppression we face, I think it should be defined by people's status as a gender, romantic or sexual minority. Anyway, I don't really have a stake in this because I don't trust cis queers much, so I don't even care a ton about the idea of a LGBTQ+ community.

9

[deleted] wrote

1

meo wrote (edited )

God why do I keep replying in this damned thread.

No I do not think that minority status is based on numbers, and I think that would be clear considering how much I stress that acephobia is real in the rest of my replies. However, I admit my above comment was somewhat unclear. I was trying to acknowledge that ace people might face less discrimination than other queer people on average, but that doesn't change their status as a sexual minority.

5

[deleted] 0 wrote

1

meo wrote

Yeah, I suppose you're right. I guess my prior reply to snake was not particularly well thought out.

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Yo I've quit and stuff but popping my head in to point out that you're absolutely full of shit and words mean things. The LGBT is explicitly a coalition (and a shitty, dysfunctional, multiply oppressive one for a lot of embodiments already) to resist cisheteronormative oppression; by basic fucking definition you have to be materially oppressed by cisheteropatriarchy to be queer. Like newsflash trans women already don't trust trans men or cis lgb people for a variety of reasons; pointing out that they're shitty in no way makes ace cishets less shitty or dangerous to be around and is easily one of the most obnoxious things about ace discourse; the eternal willingness of inclusionists to weaponize the oppression trans and bi folk already face from within the community as a point of entry, while downplaying and diluting the meaning of terms we've used to describe our experiences and even using them directly against us. I've been called a trumed or a terf (which like, lmao) by cis aces more than by other trans women because I have a basic understanding of our class interests and don't buy it.

−8

meo wrote

I'm a trans woman and literally already said in another reply that I don't trust cis queers. So, as far as I can tell, most of your reply doesn't even make any sense.

As far as your claim that ace people face no oppression from cisheteropatriarchy: even a cursory glance at the wiki article hermit_dragon linked and the sources it links to could lead you to ace people talking about the discrimination they've faced — some of which sounds a whole of a hell lot like discrimination because they are ace. Instead you chose to be very angry online, so that's cool.

In my opinion, ignoring the fact that a lot of people really dislike ace people, and that they could easily become another a target for reactionaries as knowledge of their existence becomes more widespread, is kind of irresponsible. There's no reason to not stand with ace people now, as they already deal with some pretty bad discrimination and it could get worse.

Also, I just want to reiterate, I do not trust cis queers (unless they prove themselves to be trustworthy). I'm sure plenty of cis ace people hold some horrible opinions about other queer people, same as cis gays (and even some trans people, sadly). However, that doesn't magically erase the fact that acephobia exists.

7

GaldraChevaliere wrote

So a wikipedia article is an authorative subject on queer issues and whether or not ace people are involved with them?

I have every reason not to stand with ace cishets because I have every reason not to stand with allo cishets. Acephobia isn't any kind of structural thing, it doesn't exist outside of "allo" LGBT folk not liking you very much because of your constant puritan moral grandstanding and cooption of lgbt causes. Come back when you lose your house over being ace.

−7

meo wrote

So a wikipedia article is an authorative subject on queer issues and whether or not ace people are involved with them?

I said nothing like that? I merely said a brief look at the article and the sources it links to would lead you to ace people talking about the discrimination they've faced. Having looked through this thread more closely though it seems if you saw any of those examples you'd just say it's solely about misogyny, because apparently it's impossible for people to be discriminated against for multiple reasons.

Acephobia isn't any kind of structural thing, it doesn't exist outside of "allo" LGBT folk not liking you very much because of your constant puritan moral grandstanding and cooption of lgbt causes.

I don't think I'm going to bother responding after this. If you're really going to be adamant that acephobia doesn't exist, it doesn't seem like anything I have to say is going to have any affect on you. Also, in regards to the scare quotes around allo: are you suggesting ace people's identities aren't even real? Allo is literally just the opposite of ace, if you think allo isn't a proper term that seems to be what you're suggesting.

6