Social LGBTQIA+

[Unicorns]

Probably not the place for this, but I'm an ace. So hi all.

You're wrong. You're welcome here!

 

[King Feraligatr]

You're wrong. You're welcome here!

Well, hello there.

 

[Adeleine]

ace gang ace gang

my house is your house

 

[King Feraligatr]

Ace-Gatr/Feraligacer says hi:

(image courtesy of Yung Dramps)

 

[Crux]

Asexuals and aromantics are not inherently LGBT. If you are LGBT and asexual or aromantic, then you are LGBT because you satisfy those criteria independent of your asexuality. If you assume the existence of the split attraction model that allows for such distinctions, then you also acknowledge that it is possible for cishets to be asexuals. It is not enough to say that you are asexual or aromantic as your primary method of identification in LGBT spaces. If you respond that “actually it’s all about queerness and differentiation from cishet norms” or something to that effect, that is insufficient. Being chaste is, in nearly all societies, the expected norm and it is only recently, as a result of the LGBT and feminist movements that that has started to shift.

Regardless, the split attraction model does not make sense and is homophobic and I have explained that here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/lgbtq.3633101/page-13#post-8397925

 

[Crux]

I'm not sure how well the historical 'chaste' (as in: not expected to fuck anyone until marriage at which point you do it a ton, except there's some relaxed norms for guys and some wildly varying norms around what breaks chasity and what not) can be matched with asexuality-as-modern-concept, and even if they're the same your argument comes down to 'being ace was accepted a hundred years ago, therefore it is accepted now'.

This does not respond to any of the points I made about why asexuals and aromantics are not inherently LGBT.

Regardless, this response clearly makes no sense. The point is that chasteness (which is not merely historical but still reified (how do you have a concept of slut shaming being the major response to female sexuality or a concept of gay men being sluts in the absence of that being the norm)) in the absence of formalised relationships, i.e. asexual relationships (especially given the claim by most asexuals that they experience relationship discrimination both interpersonally and politically), is still treated as important. The fact that heterosexual relationships after ratification are then considered legitimate is distinct from the treatment of any other kind of relationship.

No, my argument has nothing to do with whether or how they are accepted. I simply stated they are not inherently LGBT.

I can't say I have a real strict guideline for what counts as 'queer' and what doesn't (I used to, then I realized that's not a practical way to approach these matters), but erring on the side of inclusion or letting communities decide on their own norms themselves doesn't seem like a terrible thing. I think both criteria suggest at least somewhat more acceptance than what's being shown here.

Queer means nothing, it is not a coherent concept. It means different things to different people. To many it is a slur and should not be arbitrarily used as a group identifier that includes them. That is harmful.

But in terms of letting communities decide their own norms, there is legitimate disagreement about what counts as LGBT within the community. This is one of the more active debates. Why prioritise asexuals?

In terms of prioritising acceptance, there is no real reason to do so. Gatekeeping is necessary to create a coherent movement. For instance, some have claimed that people with kinks are inherently queer because they deviate from the dominant norms of sexuality. This would include cishet men who like to choke their girlfriends. Others have claimed that they are sapiosexual and thus queer. But this is ableist and racist. We should only include those who actually conform to and benefit the movement in their inclusion. I am not saying that these are equivalent to asexuals and aromantics, just that the logic behind deciding who is and who isn't inherently LGBT is the same. Asexuals and aromantics do not inherently make the cut.

 

[dhelmise]

(not relevant to Crux's post, and possibly bad timing, but still something I feel needs to be posted.)

Can this thread stop being used to post random one-liners? I'm personally very interested in reading other people's viewpoints for LGBT politics, and I also enjoy reading about people's coming out journeys in the thread, so it really irks me whenever someone posts like this is some discord chat. There's a difference between a one-liner that states "I'm coming out as [insert queer identity here]" and one that just reiterates something that had just been said. This might sound like a subtweet at recent posts in the thread (and it partially is, but this isn't targeted; I've been observing for a while and noticed this), but it just irks me. The posters of said posts aren't necessarily the ones entirely at fault either. I feel like a lot of these posts get left to sit out in the sun because none of the mods of this forum (bar vonFiedler) check the thread at all from what I've noticed (if this is untrue, sorry! Just feels like it since nobody ever does any moderation in this thread unless poked to do so.), and even then, vonFiedler is probably not to want to step in and delete a post with content largely revolves a topic he isn't (presumably) well-versed in.

 

[Kalalokki]

Ok I'm not a cong mod but I also don't really care so I'll just clean up some stuff here. I'm not super knowledgeable or invested in LGBTQ+ matters, but from just a quick google I'm pretty sure that asexuals are a part of that little + there at the end, and since that's the name of the thread I'd say anyone coming out as asexual are well within their right to do so here. Whether or not asexuals "belong" in some sort of larger LGBT movement I honestly don't care about and it's not really an appropriate response to people asking if they belong in a community on these forums.

 

[Here Comes Team Charm!]

What is or is not 'inherently LGBT' doesn't matter, the only practical, relevant question is: "How do we, the handful of people frequenting this single thread on the smogon dot com forums, interact with asexuals" and the response pretty overwhelmingly seems to be 'accept and/or tolerate these people'. There's like two people agreeing with you in the first place, and you're the only one who doesn't agree to disagree.

You can stand on the sidelines and shout that we're doing LGTBQ activism wrong or fail to appreciate the subtle historical nuances of 'chasteness' or whatever, but the real simple fact is that a good 90% of this thread doesn't really seem to be on your side. If you can't make them change how they respond to people saying 'hi i am ace', then this entire conversation is kind of pointless, right?

(especially because 'who do we include in our communities' is a very subjective and emotion-driven question in the first place so unless you have some incredibly practical arguments it's hard to change people's minds on it)

 

[Exeggutor]

Talking about my journey as a reidentified person at work has been well received by everyone I've told. Managed to find another new LGBT employee and we've been friendly since. Things have been going really well. Regardless of the pandemic pushing everything offline I've been trying to foster more connections with IRL LGBT people, and it's a breath of fresh air.

Had my second voice training appointment - down to D#3 now, we'll see if I can get it any lower.

May or may not have a girlfriend. She's a girl I met at uni. Neither of us have brought up the word gf directly yet, but there was a cheesy confession. She keysmashes when I say she's cute. She's got me head over heels and it feels amazing.

 

[Crux]

What is or is not 'inherently LGBT' doesn't matter, the only practical, relevant question is: "How do we, the handful of people frequenting this single thread on the smogon dot com forums, interact with asexuals" and the response pretty overwhelmingly seems to be 'accept and/or tolerate these people'. There's like two people agreeing with you in the first place, and you're the only one who doesn't agree to disagree.

You can stand on the sidelines and shout that we're doing LGTBQ activism wrong or fail to appreciate the subtle historical nuances of 'chasteness' or whatever, but the real simple fact is that a good 90% of this thread doesn't really seem to be on your side. If you can't make them change how they respond to people saying 'hi i am ace', then this entire conversation is kind of pointless, right?

(especially because 'who do we include in our communities' is a very subjective and emotion-driven question in the first place so unless you have some incredibly practical arguments it's hard to change people's minds on it)

I said nothing about how we should treat asexuals. I just said they weren't inherently LGBT. They should obviously be tolerated and accepted.

No clue where you got the rest of this comment from what i said lol

 

[Here Comes Team Charm!]

I said nothing about how we should treat asexuals. I just said they weren't inherently LGBT. They should obviously be tolerated and accepted.

No clue where you got the rest of this comment from what i said lol

Cool, glad we both agree on the matters of actual importance, and only disagree on how we define a couple of terms. That's nice to see! :)

 

[Crux]

Cool, glad we both agree on the matters of actual importance, and only disagree on how we define a couple of terms. That's nice to see! :)

it is profoundly unclear as to whether you read anything I said

 

[P Squared]

aros and aces who are feeling invalidated by this page are invited to party at my place

 

[King Feraligatr]

aros and aces who are feeling invalidated by this page are invited to party at my place

For what just happened in this thread? No, I don't feel invalidated by it. Would take more than that.

As for why I posted here, well, I wanted to say hi and stuff and maybe use this thread in the future to talk about ace-things (if I feel like it). There's not really any other threads for that on these forums as I see it. If it's such a problem for aces to talk about themselves on this thread, I could easily make an ace/aro thread instead.

 

[Itchy]

The exclusion of ace/aro people doesn't make much sense to me - aces and aros are also minority sexualities, and face some of the same issues that gay and bi people face.

To say that they are not welcome here, to me, is denying the purpose of this type of LGBTQ+ spaces - giving people a place where they can feel how they feel without shame.

To all of the aros and aces that watch this thread, I love you. You belong here, and I stand in solidarity with you.

 

[King Feraligatr]

The exclusion of ace/aro people doesn't make much sense to me - aces and aros are also minority sexualities, and face some of the same issues that gay and bi people face.

To say that they are not welcome here, to me, is denying the purpose of this type of LGBTQ+ spaces - giving people a place where they can feel how they feel without shame.

To all of the aros and aces that watch this thread, I love you. You belong here, and I stand in solidarity with you.

See, the thing is, we can "blend in" to the background much easier than others in the movement. Our existence is a lack of doing an action, rather than taking an action. So we can go through society without them knowing what we are. I'm sure more than several people who are sexual can/could never do the act, and even more people romantic and/or sexual go through life without being in a romantic and/or sexual relationship. So there's an existing and probably historic precedent for our lack of action that allows us to do the afore mentioned "blending in". One that would lead to much less derision and prejudice through history. I mean, some people do deride us once they know who we are (and that's their problem...), but before that, they can assume we just aren't interested in a relationship, etc. With all this, I can get why some people say "don't prioritize aces/aros in the movement"...we just aren't as attacking nor have as much problems as gay people and the like. So we can be put on the backburner.

That said, and as I've said, we do face problems, but that's for another time... And again, if people want, I can just make an aro/ace thread if people don't want us talking about that here.

 

[Exeggutor]

"Are aces LGBT" is a question/debate that is mostly useless and doesn't get anywhere, and is especially not going to get anywhere here.

On another note: I can only speak for myself but I hate the split attraction model and think it's incredibly homophobic in that it allows people to rationalise away uncomfortable or otherwise complicated feelings around their sexuality by trying to form a distinct line between romantic and sexual that does not exist.

you have any tips on the voice training thing? :eyes: (gz on the almost-gf too!)

Daily practice. The coach used an app called Perfect Piano and estimated what my lowest "natural" tone from my speaking voice was, and from there gave me an estimated goal that was just out of the range of what I would naturally speak at. I set aside about 5/10mins a day for the last month just practicing around those notes - my target was E3, so I practiced humming and sounding G3, F#3, F3 and E3.

It's simple and taking the time for daily practice makes a big difference.

 

[Eve]

Mom said it's my turn on the thread. I felt like a lot of stuff here is going unadressed when it certainly shouldn't, and I also just love discussing hot takes, so here goes. Please keep in mind that this is not a callout post! I'm just sarcastic as hell.

This is pretty long.

Starting recent:

"Are aces LGBT" is a question/debate that is mostly useless and doesn't get anywhere, and is especially not going to get anywhere here.

I agree with this as both sides of this discussion seem pretty sure on their opinions. I also appreciate the genuine support for Ari in the latter half of the post! Just a shame that he's aromantic and you led with this:

On another note: I can only speak for myself but I hate the split attraction model and think it's incredibly homophobic in that it allows people to rationalise away uncomfortable or otherwise complicated feelings around their sexuality by trying to form a distinct line between romantic and sexual that does not exist.

• Many things can be used to "rationalise away uncomfortable or otherwise complicated feelings around [their] sexuality". For example, there are situations in which gay individuals wrongly decide they are trans instead and change their minds later. This does not make the thing itself homophobic- it may however indicate that the user, using it incorrectly, themselves holds rooted homophobic beliefs. That's an issue that isn't caused by the split attraction model, and I am quite sure it would not be solved by somehow abolishing it.
• Calling yourself homoromantic + asexual or whatever is an awful way of rationalising away being gay, because... It's still gay. Unless everyone using these terms is unbelievably dumb I think they'd have noticed that.
• Stating that "a distinct line between romantic and sexual [...] does not exist", to me, feels extremely dismissive of the fact that your experiences simply won't line up with those of every other human being. The only thing close to proof you provide here for this claim is the implication that you, yourself, have aligning sexual and romantic attraction. My counterpoint is simple- some other people don't, and asking "why" will probably lead you to the same answer as "why are people gay". I'm really not a fan of this take, and its resemblance to a certain take regarding gender and sex is unsettling. Edit as this has been repeatedly misconstrued: no, I'm not equating the severity of different kinds of bigotry here- I'm equating the style of bigotry (denying the existence of differing identities purely because you haven't experienced them).

Now for the crux of the conversation. Just so Crux doesn't say I didn't read what he said or something (he'll find another way to be dismissive, I'm sure), I'll start with the post he linked above.

There is no coherent distinction between sexual/romantic/platonic attraction or connection. Each of us has a different understanding of each of those terms as it relates not only to us generally, but also to specific relationships that we have. For instance, when does a particularly close platonic relationship become romantic? Each individual will have a different bar/line/conception as the concepts are, themselves, vague. Attempts to delineate certain points or differences between the two will always fail. The same is true when it comes to distinctions between the other “kinds” of relationship. You only need to look at the myriad of different, yet overlapping and often indistinguishable terms that are used to describe and differentiate them by proponents of the split attraction model: queerplatonic (what is the difference between this and friends with benefits? If the answer is closeness then that is arbitrary between different relationships and how individuals define them), squishes (distinction from crushes and other terms is again only arbitrary and individual), etc. Human relationships are complicated and messy, and such a blunt tool of categorisation is both conceptually useless and often harmful to people who use them. Identity is not just how you feel at a particular moment, but also a set of limits that you are setting on yourself consciously or not. As a model in general, therefore, the split attraction model makes no sense at a fundamental level, and perhaps is even harmful to those who use it.

In this paragraph, you definitely do hit one nail on its head- it's extremely hard to draw a clear line between romantic and platonic relationships. However, despite your claim at the start, you don't even attempt to prove that the same is true for sexual and romantic relationships. You simply state that "You only need to look at the myriad of different, yet overlapping and often indistinguishable terms that are used to describe and differentiate them" and yet upon doing so, I still see the quite distinct separation of the performance of sexual acts. Please let me know if I'm wrong about this but it seems quite clear-cut in all honesty. Sure, a sexual relationship will typically contain romantic aspects, but a purely romantic relationship will not contain sexual aspects.

Further, an attempt at distinguishing between different modes of same gender attraction as xromantic, xsexual, xplatonic, etc. is also homophobic. It promotes an understanding of homosexual, bisexual etc. attraction as purely sexual, and lacking any of the apparently more nuanced qualities of definition these terms provide. It should come as no surprise that this is exactly the rhetoric that has been, and continues to be, levied against LGBT people to this day. That they are purely sexual deviants, and that nothing wholesome or true or virtuous can stem from their relationships. Attempting to define same gender attraction in this way, especially given its conceptual and ideological incoherence, perpetuates these same discriminatory attitudes. Especially given that the language is inaccessible and astonishingly esoteric. Does the language make sense for some people individually in their own conceptions of how they view themselves? Arguably, sometimes. But given its ideological incoherence and its effects on LGBT people as a whole, it should probably be put aside.

This is a very good point- there is definitely a massive amount of rhetoric based on the idea that gay, and other LGBT, individuals are sexual deviants. Once again, this is by no fault of the language of the split attraction model, which in fact doesn't imply this of homo/bisexual individuals at all. To suggest this would be to suggest that people labeled as heterosexual are not also heteroromantic, which is quite clearly absurd. The xromantic label is simply left unsaid as, for most people, their sexual attraction aligns with their romantic attraction and can be inferred. Its use is intended for those who don't fit this mold. When it comes down to it, if homophobes want to misunderstand some words to make us look bad, they'll do it no matter what we say- we shouldn't make hopeless concessions for them.

Why, then, is the split attraction model dangerous? It encourages young, confused, and often vulnerable members of the LGBT community to identify with terms that appeal to them at that particular point, rather than interrogate what they are actually feeling. The fact that I had a discussion today with members of the LGBT community who thought that someone who identified as “heteroromantic homosexual” was valid and should be taken as such is abhorrent to me. The absurdity of the split attraction model is, I think, most evident in these cases. Someone who is struggling with their identity, facing the forces of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality, deserves our help, not just a blind claim that they are “valid”. Regularly, we are wrong. I think most LGBT people have this experience. The proliferation of micro-identities and the split attraction model actively prevent young LGBT people from finding themselves as they cling to labels that are actually incoherent and meaningless. It may sound like this is their choice, or essentially insignificant to them. Maybe they will find their identities in the future? But it is actually a significant site of trauma. When a young lesbian is compelled by compulsory heterosexuality to claim she is actually bisexual, the experiences that follow from that often follow her for life. It is no surprise or coincidence that the rhetoric of “heteroromantic homosexual” etc. are exactly the rhetoric used to create the ideal homosexual of conservatives and the Catholic church (just without the fancy terms provided by the split attraction model). If you think that this is acceptable, then you don’t actually care about gay people, you care about liberalism.

Time for me to (possibly) be a bit controversial with the inclu crowd- "heteroromantic homosexual" is a misuse of the split attraction system, and I totally agree that such a thing being considered as certainly valid and not as a possible indicator of internalised homophobia (considering it too taboo or scary to have a committed homosexual relationship while not feeling the same towards a heterosexual one) is an issue. I haven't actually met or talked with anyone who identifies as such so I may be missing understanding- in which case, anyone can feel free to message me. To me, the merit of the split attraction system is in its ability to signify whether an individual is asexual, aromantic, or both, as pairing those identities with others (e.g. homoromantic asexual or bisexual aromantic) is not incongruent. Overall, I almost entirely agree with this paragraph, but once again this boils down to the same point of "something being misused in a bad way doesn't make the thing bad".

I know the rest of this post isn't actually about the split attraction model but it's interesting so

Second observation: a focus on personal identification is probably bad.

Is individual sexual identity a spectrum? Obviously, yes. Is individual gender identity a spectrum? Obviously, yes. And people should have freedom to personally identify as whatever they want. It does not follow from this that we should conceive of gender or sexuality in this way. Gender is distinct from gender identity. Gender refers to the set of social expectations, performances, and punishments that identify you as “man” or “woman”. Most crucially, it is a power relationship, where man dominates woman. Gender identity is distinct from this. Noone, when they encounter you, knows your gender identity. They can make inferences to decide how they treat you, sure. But that is in reference to the overarching categories of man or woman. This is the reason that non-binary identities are not a coherent political category. They are purely a set of individual identities. This is why the assertion that they are “a spectrum” is meaningless. Obviously they are, each is a manifestation of personal identity, but tt is only by comparison to capital G Gender that individuals are judged or punished for their unique expression of their gender identity.

The same is true of sexuality. The analogue of capital G Gender here are straight and gay. Society draws no broad distinction. This is the reason that the vast majority of discrimination allegedly perpetrated against various sexualities is better categorised as (misplaced but equally harmful) homophobia or misogyny.

Agreed.

Third (and, thankfully, final) observation: identity is not absolute

This should be obvious by this point. We are often not very introspective, and social forces conspire to prevent us from being so. We should not take a set of terms we have decided fit at a particular point and decide they fit us. I think some of these terms are particularly dangerous. Many young people who identify as asexual or aromantic or heteroromantic or quiroromantic are actually facing a combination of homophobia and internalised homophobia. This does not change the fact that there are many people who identify as these terms. Many people who identify as asexual or aromantic etc are actually misattributing personal trauma as a facet of their identity. They should receive help. This does not mean they are not “valid”, nor does it mean they are necessarily wrong in how they are identifying. Nor does this observation take anything away from those who are, in fact, asexual or aromantic. The fact that many people in these communities find these observations offensive or troubling is deeply worrying to me. Really, they should be the people who care most about these cases.

100% Agreed. This is a good paragraph.
EDIT: Having discussed this with Pokepride's resident aro legend, I have to say that the use of "Many people" seems to possibly be overexaggerating the scope of this issue, but the value of such a term can be subjective. Also focusing this on just young people isn't really fair as it can apply to people of any age range

You’re valid, identify how you want. But also think about it. Unless you’re heteroromantic homosexual, in which case I love you and I think you need to get help.

Love,
Crux

lol


Back to modern day.

Asexuals and aromantics are not inherently LGBT. If you are LGBT and asexual or aromantic, then you are LGBT because you satisfy those criteria independent of your asexuality. If you assume the existence of the split attraction model that allows for such distinctions, then you also acknowledge that it is possible for cishets to be asexuals. It is not enough to say that you are asexual or aromantic as your primary method of identification in LGBT spaces. If you respond that “actually it’s all about queerness and differentiation from cishet norms” or something to that effect, that is insufficient. Being chaste is, in nearly all societies, the expected norm and it is only recently, as a result of the LGBT and feminist movements that that has started to shift.

Correct, they're LGBTQ+. Next.

Regardless, this response clearly makes no sense. The point is that chasteness (which is not merely historical but still reified (how do you have a concept of slut shaming being the major response to female sexuality or a concept of gay men being sluts in the absence of that being the norm)) in the absence of formalised relationships, i.e. asexual relationships (especially given the claim by most asexuals that they experience relationship discrimination both interpersonally and politically), is still treated as important. The fact that heterosexual relationships after ratification are then considered legitimate is distinct from the treatment of any other kind of relationship.

Being chaste until a relationship is not the same as being asexual in the slightest due to societal (especially religious) expectations to find a sexual partner. Next.

But in terms of letting communities decide their own norms, there is legitimate disagreement about what counts as LGBT within the community. This is one of the more active debates. Why prioritise asexuals?

We don't have to prioritise anyone if we just stop having this never-ending debate and get on with useful things that actually make a difference, just my opinion

In terms of prioritising acceptance, there is no real reason to do so. Gatekeeping is necessary to create a coherent movement. For instance, some have claimed that people with kinks are inherently queer because they deviate from the dominant norms of sexuality. This would include cishet men who like to choke their girlfriends. Others have claimed that they are sapiosexual and thus queer. But this is ableist and racist. We should only include those who actually conform to and benefit the movement in their inclusion. I am not saying that these are equivalent to asexuals and aromantics, just that the logic behind deciding who is and who isn't inherently LGBT is the same. Asexuals and aromantics do not inherently make the cut.

I don't really get this, or why a group should have to benefit the movement, or how groups would benefit the movement other than by having lots of people in them. I would genuinely appreciate elaboration.


If I wasn't clear enough about anything in here let me know, there's a huge amount of text here and I can be quite scatterbrained

Also to make a statement as an admin, the Pokepride Discord is welcoming to aro/ace individuals. Have a good gay.

Love,
Eve

 

[TheValkyries]

Crux coming in as hard as possible on a near useless pedantic argument should largely be ignored unless it specifically is addressing your identity (in this case, if you are a cis heterosexual asexual person).

This is his idea of fun because he is literally, technically and primarily uselessly correct about this utterly meaningless distinction and y’all are just talking in circles projecting bad faith onto his argument.

 

[Exeggutor]

• Many things can be used to "rationalise away uncomfortable or otherwise complicated feelings around [their] sexuality". For example, there are situations in which gay individuals wrongly decide they are trans instead and change their minds later. This does not make the thing itself homophobic- it may however indicate that the user, using it incorrectly, themselves holds rooted homophobic beliefs. That's an issue that isn't caused by the split attraction model, and I am quite sure it would not be solved by somehow abolishing it.
• Calling yourself homoromantic + asexual or whatever is an awful way of rationalising away being gay, because... It's still gay. Unless everyone using these terms is unbelievably dumb I think they'd have noticed that.

It feels a little insulting to say this to someone who has openly reidentified and spoken about their journey. I am a vocal skeptic of transition in many cases and how transition is often used as a form of "easy way out" versus dealing with nonconformity and homophobia. To blame the individuals involved for "making mistakes" and ignore the possible critiques they may have is ignorant and harmful, and I am not here to tolerate any of that whatsoever.

The split attraction model is also what allows for the sort of person to go "well I would fuck a girl but I'd NEVER date one!" to rationalise internalised homophobia into a whole new microidentity.

I can and will be critical of these things when they repeatedly screw over people in being true to themselves. This is one of them.

I'm not sure why my throwaway was something to drag into some big snarky post but I don't particularly care. I will be back with hopefully more happy news the next time someone in this thread decides to poke the hive.

 

[Eve]

It feels a little insulting to say this to someone who has openly reidentified and spoken about their journey. I am a vocal skeptic of transition in many cases and how transition is often used as a form of "easy way out" versus dealing with nonconformity and homophobia. To blame the individuals involved for "making mistakes" and ignore the possible critiques they may have is ignorant and harmful, and I am not here to tolerate any of that whatsoever.

The split attraction model is also what allows for the sort of person to go "well I would fuck a girl but I'd NEVER date one!" to rationalise internalised homophobia into a whole new microidentity.

I can and will be critical of these things when they repeatedly screw over people in being true to themselves. This is one of them.

I'm not sure why my throwaway was something to drag into some big snarky post but I don't particularly care. I will be back with hopefully more happy news the next time someone in this thread decides to poke the hive.

It's late so I don't intend to address the rest of the post right now or handle the shitstorm that would probably ensue from doing so, but I'm genuinely sorry for using that analogy- it was a massively stupid oversight on my part, not that that excuses it. I'm willing to replace or remove it if you'd wish. Thanks for continuing to share your perspective.

this is a three-liner Kris don't say a word

 

[Crux]

I suppose by this point I should not be surprised to get this kind of response to a post that literally just said cishets are cishets but here we are. To clarify, as it appears necessary, I said nothing about universally excluding ace and aro people in general. In fact, I specifically said that they should be included.

Also, most of the points you make in response to the post about the split attraction model were responded to in the initial discussion of that post. You can’t be mad about me pointing out that you didn’t read them when you literally didn’t read them.

However, despite your claim at the start, you don't even attempt to prove that the same is true for sexual and romantic relationships. You simply state that "You only need to look at the myriad of different, yet overlapping and often indistinguishable terms that are used to describe and differentiate them" and yet upon doing so, I still see the quite distinct separation of the performance of sexual acts. Please let me know if I'm wrong about this but it seems quite clear-cut in all honesty. Sure, a sexual relationship will typically contain romantic aspects, but a purely romantic relationship will not contain sexual aspects.

Yes, but this misses the point. The same logic applies from that analogy also applies to romantic and sexual acts. You assume there is such a thing as a sexual act. What counts as a sexual act? When, for example, is kissing a sexual act? When is it romantic? When is it platonic? Is BDSM inherently sexual? Some asexuals would say no (they are wrong). Regardless, apparently asexuals can and do engage in and enjoy sexual acts, so this distinction doesn’t make sense anyway.

Hence: “You only need to look at the myriad of different, yet overlapping and often indistinguishable terms that are used to describe and differentiate them”

This is a very good point- there is definitely a massive amount of rhetoric based on the idea that gay, and other LGBT, individuals are sexual deviants. Once again, this is by no fault of the language of the split attraction model, which in fact doesn't imply this of homo/bisexual individuals at all. To suggest this would be to suggest that people labeled as heterosexual are not also heteroromantic, which is quite clearly absurd. The xromantic label is simply left unsaid as, for most people, their sexual attraction aligns with their romantic attraction and can be inferred. Its use is intended for those who don't fit this mold. When it comes down to it, if homophobes want to misunderstand some words to make us look bad, they'll do it no matter what we say- we shouldn't make hopeless concessions for them.

This is not a response to what I said. My claim is about the ontology of sexuality. And of course it impacts gay people differently to straight people for the reasons I explained as to why it is specifically and uniquely harmful to gay people.

Overall, I almost entirely agree with this paragraph, but once again this boils down to the same point of "something being misused in a bad way doesn't make the thing bad".

This is not a response to what I said. I explained why this is a necessary function of the split attraction model – it can only be used in this way because that is what it is designed to do.

EDIT: Having discussed this with Pokepride's resident aro legend, I have to say that the use of "Many people" seems to possibly be overexaggerating the scope of this issue, but the value of such a term can be subjective. Also focusing this on just young people isn't really fair as it can apply to people of any age range

Of course it is mostly young people - they are more likely to be confused about their sexuality/gender and more likely to have encountered the split attraction model due to its relatively recent invention. But sure, I guess.

Correct, they're LGBTQ+. Next.

You cannot respond to a post that says “here are reasons they should be excluded” with the response “actually, they are included”.

Being chaste until a relationship is not the same as being asexual in the slightest due to societal (especially religious) expectations to find a sexual partner. Next.

I did not say they were the same.

We don't have to prioritise anyone if we just stop having this never-ending debate and get on with useful things that actually make a difference, just my opinion

You have misread the sense in which I say prioritise here. I am referring to the argument about cishet asexuals, not asexuals themselves.

I don't really get this, or why a group should have to benefit the movement, or how groups would benefit the movement other than by having lots of people in them. I would genuinely appreciate elaboration.

Do you think the feminist movement should include TERFs or MRAs?

Less disingenuously, movements have limited social, political, and actual capital, and diluting them by including anyone and everyone harms the efficacy of the movement in terms of helping the people it is trying to protect. Expending resources, time, and energy dealing with the issues of people who are not part of the movement and should not be is harmful in terms of opportunity cost.

It also has ramifications in terms of safe spaces and the inclusion of actual LGBT people within the movement. I can think of lots of reasons that many lesbian and bi women, for example, would be uncomfortable with the inclusion of aro cishet men (and many are).

Movements need an identity and inclusion is not necessarily a good thing. The onus is on the people who want to be included to show how they benefit the movement, not the other way around.

 

[Peary]

My new job has gone pretty well so far, still in training so I have a few exams I need to pass but I’m not too worried about them. One thing that’s really been bothering me is one of my roommates is not only homophobic & transphobic, but is extremely rude as well. I work from home so I need peace and quiet in our room yet he will either be really loud on the phone with someone or play music while I’m working. I’ve had to constantly ask him to either leave the room or stop playing music. He also thinks I’m straight and with the way he throws around a certain word that starts with f along with him making fun of people for looking “gay”, I don’t think I will ever be able to come out to him. Really sick and tired of his shit, he is making me want to leave this sober living and move in with one of my family members. I’m in a really good place mentally, but he has been aggravating me almost every single day at this point. He will say very ignorant things regarding LGBTQ+ people as well, such as “gay people have more rights than normal people” and such. I don’t think I can do anything to change him, but it’s getting really annoying. He also is extremely lazy and dirty so our room always ends up really messy. Leaves his clothes on the floor and never cleans up after himself. I really don’t know what to do, and I’m not exactly seeking advice either, I just wanted to vent a bit. Hopefully, he will either leave or I can find a new room.

 

[tennisace]

sorry im not letting anything sink into my rectum

this post may age more poorly than it already has