One of the ways I came to the conclusion that asexuality and aromanticism aren't LGBT identities is by thinking of it similarly to polyamory and gender nonconformity.
Gender nonconforming cis people may face interpersonal social difficulties and stigma, but they are not oppressed. The antagonism they face is tied to other factors and varies from day to day.
Taking my gender fluidity out of the equation - though that's hard to do, as it's very closely tied to my expression - I am not oppressed just because of how I dress or how I cut my hair.
For starters, I don't usually look overtly feminine or masculine, and my expression can be fluid. Even though I'm very drawn to masculinity and am generally more comfortable and confident when I don't look overtly feminine, I do sometimes wear makeup, nail polish, or feminine clothing, I sometimes shave, and I've been thinking of growing out my hair (I'll shave it off again when it makes me uncomfortable). And when my appearance is seen as feminine, I'm treated not very differently than a feminine woman. Does that give me some sort of gender conforming privilege? Of course not, especially not over straight people, cis people, or men who look superficially more gender nonconforming than I do.
My privileges don't change just because I decided to put on a dress, and in any case being a woman - especially a LGBT woman - is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I could wear dresses every day and still be harmed by compulsory femininity. I wouldn't be able to economically benefit from the oppression of masculine women because in order to maintain the shield that femininity provides, I would have to get up early enough to do my makeup and hair every morning. I would have to spend additional money on feminine-coded things and constantly hold my body to a higher standard. I would, as a disabled woman, be exhausting my energy reservoir and putting myself through sensory hell every day in the faint, futile hope that my body will be pleasing to men. Of course, I could look superficially feminine without wanting to please men, but then that wouldn't truly be femininity.
Feminine women, for that reason, don't oppress me.
In the same way, I don't oppress asexual or aromantic people. Their most common argument for the existence of "aphobia" as an axis of oppression can basically be summed up to how people, especially women, are punished for saying no to sex or romance. But aros and aces aren't the only people who say no to sex or romance and they aren't the only people who are punished for it. It's also completely possible to be punished for feeling attraction - that's literally what homophobia is - so it's not like us "allos" get off easy either.
The most common victims of "aphobia" are people of color, women, disabled people, and LGBT people. And all of those groups are also punished for feeling attraction.
Just like with gender expression, one's personal relationship to romance and sex (not who they're attracted to feel) is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and the only people who really get off scot-free are cishet white abled men.
In that way, aces and aros have a lot more in common with gender nonconforming people than they do with LGBT people. So doesn't it make more sense for acomm people to form an alliance with GNC people than try to push their way into an oppressed community that they don't inherently have anything to do with?
It's not like those three groups - ace, aro, and GNC people - would even have to be the only ones in this hypothetical alliance. It could be for polyamorous people. Sex repulsed people. Celibate people.
Nothing about this would have to be focused on oppression either. They could just talk about how, regardless of how you identify, it's good to live authentically. It's okay to say yes or no to sex, to not want to date. It's okay to have multiple partners. It's okay to be an adult virgin. It's okay to dress how you want. It's okay to defy gender roles. There could be campaigns about rape culture, about sexualization of teens, about jealousy and controlling behavior and how to avoid toxic relationships. About learning to exist as a woman when so much of that is tied around performing femininity to be attractive to men and that's not what you want. About enjoying your own company. About self-love. About communication. About consent. About sexual boundaries.
I'm a GNC woman who is curious about non-monogamy and is relatively sex-repulsed. I could benefit from all of this and I know lots of other people who could as well, whether or not any of these traits apply to them.
But, as someone who would hypothetically be in this alliance and who is also a nonbinary bisexual, I need these communities to be separate. I need people to acknowledge that gay monogamy is and will always be more radical than straight polyamory. I need them to acknowledge that people are very rarely rewarded or privileged for wanting sex or romance. I need sex to not be treated like something dirty. I need marginalized people to take center stage.
Can we all agree on that? Please?
Gender nonconforming cis people may face interpersonal social difficulties and stigma, but they are not oppressed. The antagonism they face is tied to other factors and varies from day to day.
Taking my gender fluidity out of the equation - though that's hard to do, as it's very closely tied to my expression - I am not oppressed just because of how I dress or how I cut my hair.
For starters, I don't usually look overtly feminine or masculine, and my expression can be fluid. Even though I'm very drawn to masculinity and am generally more comfortable and confident when I don't look overtly feminine, I do sometimes wear makeup, nail polish, or feminine clothing, I sometimes shave, and I've been thinking of growing out my hair (I'll shave it off again when it makes me uncomfortable). And when my appearance is seen as feminine, I'm treated not very differently than a feminine woman. Does that give me some sort of gender conforming privilege? Of course not, especially not over straight people, cis people, or men who look superficially more gender nonconforming than I do.
My privileges don't change just because I decided to put on a dress, and in any case being a woman - especially a LGBT woman - is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I could wear dresses every day and still be harmed by compulsory femininity. I wouldn't be able to economically benefit from the oppression of masculine women because in order to maintain the shield that femininity provides, I would have to get up early enough to do my makeup and hair every morning. I would have to spend additional money on feminine-coded things and constantly hold my body to a higher standard. I would, as a disabled woman, be exhausting my energy reservoir and putting myself through sensory hell every day in the faint, futile hope that my body will be pleasing to men. Of course, I could look superficially feminine without wanting to please men, but then that wouldn't truly be femininity.
Feminine women, for that reason, don't oppress me.
In the same way, I don't oppress asexual or aromantic people. Their most common argument for the existence of "aphobia" as an axis of oppression can basically be summed up to how people, especially women, are punished for saying no to sex or romance. But aros and aces aren't the only people who say no to sex or romance and they aren't the only people who are punished for it. It's also completely possible to be punished for feeling attraction - that's literally what homophobia is - so it's not like us "allos" get off easy either.
The most common victims of "aphobia" are people of color, women, disabled people, and LGBT people. And all of those groups are also punished for feeling attraction.
Just like with gender expression, one's personal relationship to romance and sex (not who they're attracted to feel) is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and the only people who really get off scot-free are cishet white abled men.
In that way, aces and aros have a lot more in common with gender nonconforming people than they do with LGBT people. So doesn't it make more sense for acomm people to form an alliance with GNC people than try to push their way into an oppressed community that they don't inherently have anything to do with?
It's not like those three groups - ace, aro, and GNC people - would even have to be the only ones in this hypothetical alliance. It could be for polyamorous people. Sex repulsed people. Celibate people.
Nothing about this would have to be focused on oppression either. They could just talk about how, regardless of how you identify, it's good to live authentically. It's okay to say yes or no to sex, to not want to date. It's okay to have multiple partners. It's okay to be an adult virgin. It's okay to dress how you want. It's okay to defy gender roles. There could be campaigns about rape culture, about sexualization of teens, about jealousy and controlling behavior and how to avoid toxic relationships. About learning to exist as a woman when so much of that is tied around performing femininity to be attractive to men and that's not what you want. About enjoying your own company. About self-love. About communication. About consent. About sexual boundaries.
I'm a GNC woman who is curious about non-monogamy and is relatively sex-repulsed. I could benefit from all of this and I know lots of other people who could as well, whether or not any of these traits apply to them.
But, as someone who would hypothetically be in this alliance and who is also a nonbinary bisexual, I need these communities to be separate. I need people to acknowledge that gay monogamy is and will always be more radical than straight polyamory. I need them to acknowledge that people are very rarely rewarded or privileged for wanting sex or romance. I need sex to not be treated like something dirty. I need marginalized people to take center stage.
Can we all agree on that? Please?
No comments:
Post a Comment