party soft

I’m seeing some circular logic here

ace-azaelia:

Okay, entirely putting aside my own personal opinion on asexuality and whether it’s a queer identity and how big the queer umbrella is/should be and whether passing privilege has as much effect as certain people are arguing it does…

I’m seeing logic circles in this argument, going like such:

-Asexuals are not queer
-Therefore the ostracism and marginalisation they face is not queer
-This ostracism and marginalisation they face isn’t queer because they’re not queer
-They are not queer because the issues they face aren’t queer issues
-The issues they face aren’t queer issues because they’re not queer
-They’re not queer because…

(ad nauseum)

At least, I haven’t seen an argument as to why asexuals aren’t queer that doesn’t either start playing oppression olympics or say it’s because the issues they face aren’t queer (and starting the loop).  Maybe passing privilege is brought up, but that argument discredits the fact that a lot of the time, the passing privilege is due to invisibility and erasure, and does a lot of damage internally for the damage it supposedly spares externally.

And as long as the one side is stuck in a logic loop, nothing the other side says is going to get through.  And as long as both sides are speaking from a place of pain, neither side will be able to step back and say “oh, this is a better way to get the point across.”

And I don’t know how to fix these problems outside of a miraculous epiphany.

(This is why I’ve kind of been staying out of the argument these past few rounds, because I don’t have anything to say that I haven’t already said and from what I’ve seen what I have to say won’t be accepted anyway)

listen, you deliberately obtuse, disingenuous brat. I’m going to explain this once more for you in the simplest terms I can imagine.

queer as a pejorative term has historically been used against people who experience romantic or sexual attraction to the same gender. it still is today. it is the verbal essence of the hate, disgust, and derision that straight people and homophobic society feels about us.

in recent history, those it has been used against have begun the hard work of reclaiming that word. reclamation of “queer” is the empowering process through which we take control of a word that has been used to hurt us and to turn us into queers rather than human beings. this process is not complete. people still use these words against us. in the mildest cases, angry men scream QUEERS out their car doors as we walk from parking to the gay club that is celebrating pride that very night, all because two women were holding hands. in the most severe cases, the psychological violence of that word is backed up by physical violence. there are still many people who wince when they hear “queer” and would rather not make it part of their identity. and even those of us who do use that word to describe ourselves do it gingerly, conscious of the ways in which that single syllable can suddenly turn poisonous in the mouths of even the most “progressive” straights.

and then suddenly, a group of people who does not share this history and this present with us come clamoring in, demanding that they count as queer because a few academics who were horribly disconnected from the “real world” decided to change the definition to “not normal.” these people - hetero- or aromantic asexuals, in this case - have never and will never experience the oppression that is inextricably linked to this word. in fact, they carry with them the privilege of being able to choose ”queer” - to want ”queer,” even - while those of us who actually are queer had it shoved on us by a society that refuses to see us as anything more than queers and hates us for it.

the logic isn’t circular. it’s simple. “queer” has always been a slur aimed at us, people who are somehow attracted to the same gender. and so it is our word and no one else’s, just as it is our pain and no one else’s.