If you’re going to demand that I be inclusive and then refuse to grant me liberty to use the terms by which I can express this inclusiveness, then I’m afraid I just can’t do that. Either I’m going to completely discount and dismiss every homo/bi/pan ace who has suffered at the hands of homophobia, or I’m going to ignore the systems of privilege by which these institutions run.
What you’re doing is making it impossible for me make my argument by removing the only tools I have in order to do it. You’re unfairly dictating the terms of this discussion and trying to simplify this entire argument into a dismissive and harmful decision of “are all asexual people queer or not?” when it’s not that simple.
But fine, you want to take away the only means by which I can properly make my argument, then so be it. No asexual person can ever be considered queer ever because asexuality is not queer and homophobia is not a system which oppresses people based on the relationships they form according to gender of the person they’re attracted to. Homophobia only ever focuses on the gender of the person you’re fucking, and since asexual people never have sex homophobia can’t ever target them. Their gender identity is no longer important because their orientation is all that matters so even transgendered asexuals not queer either.
Queer can only ever apply to homosexual people, bisexual people, and non-ace transgendered people. Aceadmiral refuses to accept that queerphobia is something that centers around society’s opinions of the relationships between two people and their respective genders, and that queerphobia is capable of affecting certain asexual people not because of their asexuality but because of their romantic inclinations and/or gender, so therefore it just doesn’t happen ever. This discourse has come to a grinding halt and I’m afraid will not be able to pick up again.
There. Now not only have I dismissed your experiences, but I’ve also dismissed the experiences of every homo/bi/pan/trans ace. Are you happy now? Is this the discourse you were looking for? A simple blanket statement that ignores the layers of nuance, privilege, and marginalization in favor for a simple yes or no answer? Well, either way this is what you get.
I hope you enjoy it.
Alright, it is your prerogative to paint all aces as not-queer by sexual orientation alone and I’mma let you finish and keep having that hateful thought and all, but before I do that I’m going to point out a few things to you that you seem to be ignoring so as to better exclude asexuals.
…trying to simplify this entire argument into a dismissive and harmful decision of “are all asexual people queer or not?” when it’s not that simple.
No, actually, it is! Because if asexuality were a true orientation to you, you would realize that asexuals as a group do face discrimination from heterosexist society as a whole. You can go on and on about how it’s homophobia or whatever else you like, but intersectionality rules in this realm. The fact of the matter is, as soon as any ace admits that they are an asexual and that their asexuality is not going to change, there’s a very good chance that they’re going to be told that they are damaged, even if they are heteroromantic.
But asexuality isn’t a valid orientation so whatever I mean, people who aren’t real don’t have to be treated with respect when they ask for it, right? Right. Okay, moving on.
nota system which oppresses people based on the relationships they form according to gender of the person they’re attracted to
Do you know what lack of sex in a romantic relationship does? It invalidates that relationship in the eyes of society. So even a hetero ace’s relationship is not a “real” relationship. Does this sound familiar to you? Perhaps something about same-gender relationships being invalid and Less Than… I can’t quite remember! Oh no wait asexuals face the same devaluing. And on top of that, asexuals are “damaged.” This, too, should feel very fucking familiar to anyone who has studied queer history!
You know what, I’m just going to link you this snarky little bit here. This is just a sampling of what all asexuals face while still not being worthy of the queer label.
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, if your entire argument is unarguable when you respect asexual’s wishes by not divvying us up by romantic orientation, you ought to reconsider said argument? That maybe divvying us up by romantic orientation to fit your sexual view of the world is rude, hurtful, and erases our sexual orientation for your convenience? Aceadmiral has already tried to explain this to you. You just don’t seem to be listening.