You must log in or register to comment.

snake wrote

I still don't see how someone can compare being 'bullied and excluded' to 'literally publicly executed in multiple countries'. The concern is cishet ace people entering queer spaces and acting like a cishet person, which is something I've definitely had the pleasure of dealing with in the past. It alone doesn't make them queer, because there is no institutional nor major social oppression based on asexuality alone.

−7

snake wrote

/u/ziq Do we seriously have truscum on this website or was that just an example? If so, that's gross.

0

meo wrote (edited )

Replying to snake (#126,395)

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.

13

snake wrote (edited )

Replying to meo (#126,427)

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.

−5

meo wrote (edited )

Replying to snake (#126,429)

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

hermit_dragon wrote (edited )

Replying to snake (#126,395)

CW - rape

Ace people are commonly subjected to 'corrective' sexual violence, like other queer folks, is one thing I'd like to point out on the 'are they oppressed similarly to other queer folks'.

There's a bunch of institutional (cultural? Structural?) oppression ace people face in an allosexual society. I'm too exhausted rn to give more examples, but 'the assumption not being sexual is abnormal, and that corrective rape will 'fix' that' is one.

Think of the violence inherant in 'you just need to get laid'.

15

hermit_dragon wrote

Replying to !deleted1807 (#126,453)

I don't have the energy to properly address everything here, and I'm running out of spoons to continue in depth, sorry.

In brief - this definition seems trans exclusionary to me, considering trans and GNC people experience corrective rape as well.

11

hermit_dragon wrote (edited )

Arguably, yes?

The wiki article on acephobia lays out Institutional and Social discrimination ace people face, as well as hate crimes, dehumanization, erasure, etc. Also a case for acephobia as an expression of heterosexism, which is mentioned in the ToS

The ToS only mentions heterosexism and transphobia, so it's narrow and I know this would probably be debated as falling under heterosexism. I think it's pretty sound but I'm queer and grey-ace so I own I have personal bias.

Personally I think maybe updating the ToS to mention discrimination again Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities could be more thorough.

I know that it won't necessarily address the Ace issue, as generally the arguments come down to gatekeeping who gets to be included in GSRM, but I thought I'd mention it as an idea in any case.

[edited for tiredbrainoops]

12

snake wrote

Replying to hermit_dragon (#126,462)

Trans people suffer from homophobia - that's a component of transphobia. The perception of trans people as just gay individuals of their assigned gender, and thus treatment as such.

−2

Raven wrote

What drama did I miss this time? :( please raddle don't fight

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Replying to meo (#126,427)

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.

−7

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Replying to hermit_dragon (#126,462)

It isn't that you don't have the energy, it's that you're a liar and want to piggyback off of trans issues because you can't think of a single thing that actually consistently happens to ace people that isn't a direct consequence of misogyny.

−8

meo wrote

Replying to GaldraChevaliere (#126,535)

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.

8

go1dfish wrote

Forgive my ignorance, but what is "ace exclusion" or ace in this context?

1

Enkara wrote

this debate is very bad and stupid

0

hermit_dragon wrote (edited )

Replying to GaldraChevaliere (#126,537)

you're a liar

... I'm disabled

piggyback off of trans issues

... I'm trans

you can't think of a single thing that actually consistently happens to ace people that isn't a direct consequence of misogyny

... I'll admit there's a lot of stuff in my head, but I'm pretty sure none of that stuff is you reading my mind and knowing the content of it

11

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Replying to meo (#126,581)

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

Replying to GaldraChevaliere (#126,616)

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

n_n wrote (edited )

In my opinion, I don't think that Ace exclusion as a whole is against the ToS. Asexual and queer are sexual minorities that have intersection tho. Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender. Assexual is also an umbrella term, heteroromantic ace is part of it and can't be considered queer. Biromantic, homoromantic and panromantic ace people are queer, and should be allowed in queer spaces. Aromantic ace is a grey area, some considered queer others not, and I'm not informed enough to give an opinion on that. So in short the whole term can't be included under the queer umbrella and, only the queer elements on it can. That's how I see it at the moment. That if we want to be technical. People here talk about that asexual suffer discrimination, but I think that the brunt of that discrimination is toward the queer asexuals, for being queer. You will have to show me reliable sources to convince me that heteromantic people are systematically discriminated. Queer spaces are safe spaces for queer people.

−7

blog wrote

In my experience ace inclusionist stances here earn you suicide goading and other ableist abuse the admins tolerate

9

blog wrote (edited )

Replying to boom (#126,709)

The thread is available in my post history, but keep downvoting me before you know anything in specific about what I'm talking about, definitely don't try to get facts before forming an opinion, that's against the TOS

6

boom wrote (edited )

Replying to blog (#126,711)

I'm not reading your whole post history to find it. Did you even report the ableism to the admins?

And I didn't downvote you..

−3

blog wrote (edited )

Replying to boom (#126,713)

They saw it and did nothing. There was a whole thread about it in /f/meta which was since deleted. Keep casting ignorant aspersions. My post history is super short and if your default assumption is just that I'm lying because I Said A Bad Thing About Raddle then I'm not gonna argue with you.

EDIT Oh I think they "warned" the user but that's how it works here, if you're a part of the favored in-crowd you can do anything you want and be given infinite second chances, if you're not, fuck up once and you're banned

7

boom wrote (edited )

Replying to blog (#126,719)

Looking at your post history, you seem to be some kind of tankie so I'm not surprised you're attacking me and calling me a liar for asking for more information. Fuck you.

−4

blog wrote (edited )

Replying to boom (#126,720)

I criticized one group of anarchists 100 years ago. This is literally not what it means to be a tankie. If "criticizing any anarchists anywhere ever" is what being a tankie is then a lot of anarchists are tankies. This is ridiculous.

I also literally never called you a liar. You can literallly go and try and quotemine me and you'll fail because I literally never said it. Specifically what I accused you of was jumping to conclusions and being unwilling to hear bad things about something you like (this website).

Being dissatisfied with favoritist moderation and double standards is literally not what it means to be tankie.

6

blog wrote (edited )

Replying to boom (#126,726)

I literally said in that quote that you made an assumption. I also never defended a state, you are misreading me.

EDIT sometimes when someone is being ridiculous I do get angry and say shit wrong. So then I have to go back and edit. I don't actually recall what I originally said but the reason why I edited it is I don't really stand by it and/or it wasn't what I really wanted to say.

But what I've been trying to say is that you're jumping to conclusions, not accusing you of lying.

6

blog wrote (edited )

Replying to boom (#126,734)

No, I am neither cis, straight, nor ace. I already addressed that I'm not ace at all in the other thread you supposedly read. Keep casting ignorant aspersions.

EDIT heads up I edited for clarity

EDIT you did literally say that I said that

EDIT for the record I'm pan and nb.

5

F_x wrote

As someone that isn't affected by the debate, I side that asexuality isn't queer except if you are actually queer as a person. A thing I'm curious about is how asexual are facing oppression, nobody knows if you are having sex or not. And if someone knows and is being a shit about it, isn't it similar as being a shit toward men that don't fit the "manly man" stereotype?

1

zzuum wrote

Yes. Easily thinking about it, think about how much people do not want to have children are pressured by society. Easily oppressive. Don't exclude asexuals from circles.

7

hermit_dragon wrote (edited )

Replying to blog (#126,705)

Holy fucking wow I just went over that exchange in your history.

Not ok. Suicide goading is serious imo, and the ableism on display is virulent. shaking my head

I'll do violence to a nazi any fucking day [edit: meaning I get that sometimes we say stuff like that here] but what GS did there is beyond the pale imo.

Nothing in ToS about suicide goading, wish there was :/

8

thekraken wrote

Can we maybe just not be shitty to people based on race, gender, sexual orientation (or lack thereof), condiment preferences, or any other involuntary category? I know it's a revolutionary idea, but hey, it's worth a shot.

8

blog wrote (edited )

Replying to hermit_dragon (#126,805)

In retrospect I could have handled myself in that convo better but it got so weirdly hostile so fast I was definitely caught off-guard and triggered to shit. There was an additional /f/meta thread somebody else created where it just got worse and worse over the course of a day before admins deleted it.

It was bad shit. Point is, there are some toxic things in this community. I've seen site users publicly state they feel uncomfortable discussing their identities here within the last day.

And I think that gets to an interesting point about ace exclusionism. They say they're not against aces and that it's just about being clear about who's queer and who's not. But anyone who's paying attention must have noticed the chilling and hostile atmosphere towards aces (edit: or for that matter anyone who speaks up for them) this rhetoric creates, and the way in which queer aces get swept up into the frenzy. They're construed as outsiders and invaders who can't be trusted. In spite of exclusionists' denials it seems profoundly reactionary and frankly bigoted.

7

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

As per the various large comments I made in this post, on my understanding, I say yes. Unfortunately the two best challengers to my understandings - Dumai here and Galdra here - didn't follow up with my enquiries at all or all the way through. I think we're working with multiple different ideas of what makes aceness though and also of what inclusion means in this context and that's part of the problem.

I think I'm troubled at making some of these calls about inclusion because I work off of an affinity rather than identity-based way organising with people. (I still account for how identities affect oppression, but that's not usually the lines along which I like to organise). I generally don't exclude anyone before knowing them if I have the energy. And if I'm excluding them then it's because I don't know them, though I'm more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to queer people.
Except here, queer is not a term for LGBT people at all, but people who live their lives against normative ways of loving others and living gender and having family etc.

Ummmm yeah this is the short and not-perfectly-explained outline of my thoughts.

7

n_n wrote (edited )

Replying to Tequila_Wolf (#126,835)

That's a good take, tho I still have trouble to grasp some things. I made a comment but with no answers and I'm still unsure on the issue.

against normative ways of loving

My question is:

Is cis ace heteromantic normative? For what I understand, heterosexuals are romantically/sexually attracted to the members of the opposite sex, romantic atraction is included in sexual orientation. The ToS talks about heterosexism, so you can argue that groups among the asexual community suffer from it. But is that a reason to included ace as a whole in the queer community? As an example of what I trying to point, women are affected by heterosexism so we should include women as a whole also? That seems to be the principal concern among people that are against inclusion here.

1

n_n wrote (edited )

Replying to F_x (#126,741)

I'm curious about is how asexual are facing oppression, nobody knows if you are having sex or not.

Aces can be in queer romantic relationships and/or being non-cis, being ace doesn't mean that you don't have sex.

2

meo wrote (edited )

Replying to Dumai (#126,967)

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

F_x wrote

Replying to n_n (#126,928)

That's my point, asexuality has nothing to do with queerness but the relationship is. Having a low libido isn't being asexual though. If you mean having sex for the sake of the other partner and if both are cishet then it's not queer.

I hope it doesn't sound like an attack on anyone, I just want to share my view and hearing others.

1

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Replying to n_n (#126,900)

Is cis ace heteromantic normative?

Categories like cis or ace or whatever are generally normative. They have content that generally reinforces and is reinforced by power structures in this world.

But we don't have to act in ways the reinforce the structures, we can act against the normative structures. To make a dramatic example, cishets could organise themselves and collectively refuse to marry, to have children, or organise their families in a nuclear structure and those actions could themselves be queerer than (again for example) assimilationist rich white cis gay bros who marry and are 'apolitical' and set themselves up with nuclear families etc.

I'd rather organise with kind, solid aroace people I know who put real energy into making queer events great than with shitty LGBT people who are racist or transphobic or biphobic or whatever. I'm not friends with any cishets but if they were kind and solid I would organise with them also.
That said, I don't do things that are exclusive to queers generally. Even at public queer events we leave it open to everyone, and we keep an eye out for assholes and get rid of them by being too queer for them or just kicking them out. If I'm excluding people at events it's not by category, it's because I know their individual politics, and everyone there I've chosen or is vetted by someone else I have strong affinity with.

But is that a reason to included ace as a whole in the queer community?

What does this mean though? What queer community? There is no abstract queer community. Included means what? (I'm serious).

If people want to organise under common oppression they can, but there's actually loads of different kinds of oppression within LGBT people, and I don't see why being oppressed is a good basis for organising for someone rather than just affinity.

6

hermit_dragon wrote

Replying to Tequila_Wolf (#126,835)

Aside - I just wanted to thank you for articulating some things (affinity based organizing, queerness as non-normative, etc) that I don't always have the words and framing for.

This brings my own preferred ways of organizing into focus and clarity for me, and reminds me what this looks like, when things had gotten rather murky in recent years. I super appreciate your words.

3

n_n wrote (edited )

Replying to Tequila_Wolf (#127,115)

What queer community?

The people for what queer spaces exist, safe spaces to being themselves whiteout being oppressed by cisheteronormativity and its abuse. Also people here used LGBT+ and queer as a synonyms, I'm not.

I still think that is not necessarily against the ToS, only if people use it as excuse to discriminate Queer aces it will be against it.

1

n_n wrote (edited )

Replying to Tequila_Wolf (#127,115)

I still have a lot of doubts. I think that I will stop of comment on it at the moment. ._____.

I appreciate your opinion. I will think about what you said. ^__^

1