![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A bunch of posts I saw on tumblr which got me thinking!
Asexuals in LGBT+ spaces
Why is queer taboo?
History of umbrella terms
The nasty, homophobic history of the term 'same sex attracted'
Discussion of 'same sex loving' as a AAVE term, and the difference to 'same sex attracted'
First off: there is no way to find a catchall term that makes everyone happy. We should do our best to avoid terms which make a LOT of people VERY unhappy, but there's no way to entirely acheive that. For this post I've used "queer" and "bi", apologies to those they apply to who dislike them, I definitely don't claim they're perfect.
Also I've implied that, for example, asexual people can be neatly divided into homoromantic, biromantic, heteroromantic, and aromantic. But orientation (and gender!) doesn't work neatly for many people, and not everyone embraces these distinctions. I can't see any way to include the breadth of people's orientations without adding ten million disclaimers/edge cases, but please be aware that I am oversimplifying.
My introduction to the word "gay", in the 1980s, was in the context of the boys at my primary school accusing each other of being it, and also as term for homosexual men. A little while later gay became popular as a synonym for bad/dorky.
My introduction to the word "queer", in the 1990s, was in the context of queer activism and queer theory.
(Ok, strictly speaking I encountered both earlier, as a child reading Enid Blyton etc, where they meant "happy" and "odd" respectively)
I don't remember when I encountered LGBT/GLBT, probably some time in the 90s, but it was 100% in a formal, mostly positive sense. Same with MOGAI a decade or so later.
I encountered "same sex attracted" for the first time recently in the faq of an explicitely anti-asexual blog. I encountered "same sex loving" in that same faq. I may have encountered them earlier and forgotten because they were described as cultural terms only used in the US.
I very rarely seen "queer" used as an insult in the wild. I see "gay" used as one much more frequently.
Afaict, the current popularity of 'gay' on tumblr is in part because of the association with insults, eg the phrase 'Dumb gay dorks' used as an affectionate insult for a slash pairing. Self describing as 'super gay' etc to me reads as a deliberate reclaiming of the word from it's negative associations: yes I am 'gay' and I am proud of it!
And this is the context in which I enjoy using the term myself. "This is so gay" is a phrase that can be read simultaneously as "this is so bad" and "this is so full of lgbt (sub)text", and that ambiguity is fun to play with. I'm less of a fan of straight cis people playing with the word that way.
I am SUPER not a fan of "gay" being used as a catchall in the context of the simultaneous popularity of the term "same sex attracted", which afaict comes entirely from a transphobic, acephobic place.
I had not encountered either term until recently, and have no strong past associations. I find both pretty alienating as a non binary person, but now I know the background I am much more uncomfortable with “same gender attracted” than “same gender loving”.
It's very important for people to know that 'same gender loving' is used in black communities in an inclusive way, so we don’t say terms like this have an entirely awful history/NOONE should use them etc. I, as a white Australian, have zero say in how people in black American communities refer to themselves!
But what I do have a say in is what term to use for the international/online community. Any time a term is used broadly enough to include me it is clearly not being used just in the context of the black American community, or the US in general.
If a black American referred to queer people in general, including me, as “same gender loving” because that's the term they're most comfortable/familiar with, I wouldn’t be super fussed. It would be a bit alienating, but white people telling black people what words are “correct” has a pretty nasty history so it’s not a hill I choose to die on.
Once a term is established in a community a lot of people are going to want to keep it despite any semantic issues, like I am happiest with “bi”, even though it implies there only two genders, because that’s the term I grew up with. I accept some people prefer pan but sometimes use bi as a broader term out of habit(*). Similarly, I’m not a fan of people using “gay” as a catchall term for lgb, and used to find “lesbian” as a catchall for “woman attracted to other women” annoying, but accept that those terms have history and people generally don’t mean any harm. But I am against any formal use of, say, “gay” to mean “lgb” or, worse, "lgbt".
And from what I can tell, the main issue here is people calling for "same gender attracted” (not “loving”) to be used as the new default term for everyone, including in formal contexts. Not because it’s natural to them (afaict some are black but many aren’t), but because they like how it centers same gender attraction as a defining trait of the community in a way "queer” and even “lgbt” don’t. And I can’t see any argument for that that isn’t transphobic. I’ve been attracted to people of various genders but no other genderfluid ones I can remember, does that make me not “same gender attracted”? What about trans people who are heterosexual/asexual and heteroromantic/aromantic?
"Same gender attracted” has no positive associations for the majority of the international community it describes, and traumatically negative ones for a significant number of Americans. It is not already established/comfortable, not even in the black American community afaict. And it has semantic issues that are worse than literally every other popular term, unless excluding asexuals is more important to you than including trans people, in which case you're being transphobic. So I see no good reason to use it.
I read a post a while ago which I didn't save a link to but which made a very good point, to my mind, and heavily influenced my current opinion, which is that asexual and romantic people can be queer, and get to decide whether or not they are individually. Anghraine's post describes my feelings pretty well too.
Some heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people are definitely not part of the queer community. They see themselves as straight and are happy that way. But lgbt asexual and aromantic people are, by definition, part of the lgbt community. Aromantic asexual people are definitely not straight. Some heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people do feel queer, and don't feel straight, and their experiences are definitely not the same as heterosexual heteroromantic people. And then there's people on the edges: grey asexual, wtfromantic etc (which is true for any question of orientation in general. How far do you have to be along the Kinsey scale before you count as bi, for example?)
So there is no neat line. Any definition will always be fuzzy. Our choices are a definition which actively excludes some non-straight people, or one which theoretically allows some straight people but only if they choose to identify as queer, which they presumably won't. The latter is better in my opinion.
This is also why I include those heterosexual heteroromantic trans people who identify as queer, even though some don't.
Yes, heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people can never know what it is like to experience homophobia, and can be homophobic themselves. But cis lgb people can never know what it's like to experience transphobia, and can be transphobic themselves. Cis gay and bi men can never experience sexism, and can be sexist. There is no singular lgbt experience, and never has been. Everyone has different experiences, and needs to remember not to be an ass to people with different experiences, especially oppression related ones. Any argument for excluding asexual and aromantic people can also be used to exclude cis people, men etc. And has been used to exclude cis bi people in m/f relationships (but not single lesbian and gay cis people, for some reason, even though they also are not currently in a same sex relationship)
There are times when it makes sense for people with similar experiences to band together and have their own spaces. This includes people who experience same sex attraction, who would be justified in creating their own space excluding asexual aromantic people, het aro/aces, and het trans people. But the same can be said of queer women (excluding queer men), trans people (excluding cis people) etc. I even think it would make sense for gay, lesbian, non-binary and asexual people to bond about not experiencing heterosexual attraction and have a space excluding bisexual and heterosexual aromantic people, though that doesn't seem to be a thing.
The hatred thrown at asexual and aromantic people is definitely not restricted to heterosexual/heteromantic ones, and has made the community feel pretty unsafe and unwelcoming to me as a biromantic grey asexual. I have trouble believing that including heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people would make it more unsafe for me, and suspect it would make it safer.
But I also suspect a lot of these people don't care about bi/pan people, lgbt asexual/aromantic people, or trans/non binary people in general, and thus don't care if someone like me is pushed out of their community. They'd probably welcome it, more space for people like them.
(*)Including in this post! But "pan" means something specific and isn't used as a catchall from what I've seen. There's mga=multiple gender attracted but that's too similar to same sex attracted for my tastes. Does anyone know of any other terms? "Bi/pan" is a bit unwieldy.
Asexuals in LGBT+ spaces
Why is queer taboo?
History of umbrella terms
The nasty, homophobic history of the term 'same sex attracted'
Discussion of 'same sex loving' as a AAVE term, and the difference to 'same sex attracted'
First off: there is no way to find a catchall term that makes everyone happy. We should do our best to avoid terms which make a LOT of people VERY unhappy, but there's no way to entirely acheive that. For this post I've used "queer" and "bi", apologies to those they apply to who dislike them, I definitely don't claim they're perfect.
Also I've implied that, for example, asexual people can be neatly divided into homoromantic, biromantic, heteroromantic, and aromantic. But orientation (and gender!) doesn't work neatly for many people, and not everyone embraces these distinctions. I can't see any way to include the breadth of people's orientations without adding ten million disclaimers/edge cases, but please be aware that I am oversimplifying.
Personal experiences with various terms
My introduction to the word "gay", in the 1980s, was in the context of the boys at my primary school accusing each other of being it, and also as term for homosexual men. A little while later gay became popular as a synonym for bad/dorky.
My introduction to the word "queer", in the 1990s, was in the context of queer activism and queer theory.
(Ok, strictly speaking I encountered both earlier, as a child reading Enid Blyton etc, where they meant "happy" and "odd" respectively)
I don't remember when I encountered LGBT/GLBT, probably some time in the 90s, but it was 100% in a formal, mostly positive sense. Same with MOGAI a decade or so later.
I encountered "same sex attracted" for the first time recently in the faq of an explicitely anti-asexual blog. I encountered "same sex loving" in that same faq. I may have encountered them earlier and forgotten because they were described as cultural terms only used in the US.
I very rarely seen "queer" used as an insult in the wild. I see "gay" used as one much more frequently.
Afaict, the current popularity of 'gay' on tumblr is in part because of the association with insults, eg the phrase 'Dumb gay dorks' used as an affectionate insult for a slash pairing. Self describing as 'super gay' etc to me reads as a deliberate reclaiming of the word from it's negative associations: yes I am 'gay' and I am proud of it!
And this is the context in which I enjoy using the term myself. "This is so gay" is a phrase that can be read simultaneously as "this is so bad" and "this is so full of lgbt (sub)text", and that ambiguity is fun to play with. I'm less of a fan of straight cis people playing with the word that way.
I am SUPER not a fan of "gay" being used as a catchall in the context of the simultaneous popularity of the term "same sex attracted", which afaict comes entirely from a transphobic, acephobic place.
Same sex attracted and same sex loving
I had not encountered either term until recently, and have no strong past associations. I find both pretty alienating as a non binary person, but now I know the background I am much more uncomfortable with “same gender attracted” than “same gender loving”.
It's very important for people to know that 'same gender loving' is used in black communities in an inclusive way, so we don’t say terms like this have an entirely awful history/NOONE should use them etc. I, as a white Australian, have zero say in how people in black American communities refer to themselves!
But what I do have a say in is what term to use for the international/online community. Any time a term is used broadly enough to include me it is clearly not being used just in the context of the black American community, or the US in general.
If a black American referred to queer people in general, including me, as “same gender loving” because that's the term they're most comfortable/familiar with, I wouldn’t be super fussed. It would be a bit alienating, but white people telling black people what words are “correct” has a pretty nasty history so it’s not a hill I choose to die on.
Once a term is established in a community a lot of people are going to want to keep it despite any semantic issues, like I am happiest with “bi”, even though it implies there only two genders, because that’s the term I grew up with. I accept some people prefer pan but sometimes use bi as a broader term out of habit(*). Similarly, I’m not a fan of people using “gay” as a catchall term for lgb, and used to find “lesbian” as a catchall for “woman attracted to other women” annoying, but accept that those terms have history and people generally don’t mean any harm. But I am against any formal use of, say, “gay” to mean “lgb” or, worse, "lgbt".
And from what I can tell, the main issue here is people calling for "same gender attracted” (not “loving”) to be used as the new default term for everyone, including in formal contexts. Not because it’s natural to them (afaict some are black but many aren’t), but because they like how it centers same gender attraction as a defining trait of the community in a way "queer” and even “lgbt” don’t. And I can’t see any argument for that that isn’t transphobic. I’ve been attracted to people of various genders but no other genderfluid ones I can remember, does that make me not “same gender attracted”? What about trans people who are heterosexual/asexual and heteroromantic/aromantic?
"Same gender attracted” has no positive associations for the majority of the international community it describes, and traumatically negative ones for a significant number of Americans. It is not already established/comfortable, not even in the black American community afaict. And it has semantic issues that are worse than literally every other popular term, unless excluding asexuals is more important to you than including trans people, in which case you're being transphobic. So I see no good reason to use it.
Where do asexuals and aromantic people fit into the queer community
I read a post a while ago which I didn't save a link to but which made a very good point, to my mind, and heavily influenced my current opinion, which is that asexual and romantic people can be queer, and get to decide whether or not they are individually. Anghraine's post describes my feelings pretty well too.
Some heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people are definitely not part of the queer community. They see themselves as straight and are happy that way. But lgbt asexual and aromantic people are, by definition, part of the lgbt community. Aromantic asexual people are definitely not straight. Some heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people do feel queer, and don't feel straight, and their experiences are definitely not the same as heterosexual heteroromantic people. And then there's people on the edges: grey asexual, wtfromantic etc (which is true for any question of orientation in general. How far do you have to be along the Kinsey scale before you count as bi, for example?)
So there is no neat line. Any definition will always be fuzzy. Our choices are a definition which actively excludes some non-straight people, or one which theoretically allows some straight people but only if they choose to identify as queer, which they presumably won't. The latter is better in my opinion.
This is also why I include those heterosexual heteroromantic trans people who identify as queer, even though some don't.
Yes, heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people can never know what it is like to experience homophobia, and can be homophobic themselves. But cis lgb people can never know what it's like to experience transphobia, and can be transphobic themselves. Cis gay and bi men can never experience sexism, and can be sexist. There is no singular lgbt experience, and never has been. Everyone has different experiences, and needs to remember not to be an ass to people with different experiences, especially oppression related ones. Any argument for excluding asexual and aromantic people can also be used to exclude cis people, men etc. And has been used to exclude cis bi people in m/f relationships (but not single lesbian and gay cis people, for some reason, even though they also are not currently in a same sex relationship)
There are times when it makes sense for people with similar experiences to band together and have their own spaces. This includes people who experience same sex attraction, who would be justified in creating their own space excluding asexual aromantic people, het aro/aces, and het trans people. But the same can be said of queer women (excluding queer men), trans people (excluding cis people) etc. I even think it would make sense for gay, lesbian, non-binary and asexual people to bond about not experiencing heterosexual attraction and have a space excluding bisexual and heterosexual aromantic people, though that doesn't seem to be a thing.
The hatred thrown at asexual and aromantic people is definitely not restricted to heterosexual/heteromantic ones, and has made the community feel pretty unsafe and unwelcoming to me as a biromantic grey asexual. I have trouble believing that including heterosexual aromantic and heteromantic asexual people would make it more unsafe for me, and suspect it would make it safer.
But I also suspect a lot of these people don't care about bi/pan people, lgbt asexual/aromantic people, or trans/non binary people in general, and thus don't care if someone like me is pushed out of their community. They'd probably welcome it, more space for people like them.
(*)Including in this post! But "pan" means something specific and isn't used as a catchall from what I've seen. There's mga=multiple gender attracted but that's too similar to same sex attracted for my tastes. Does anyone know of any other terms? "Bi/pan" is a bit unwieldy.
Tags: