Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jean McKinney's avatar

It's wonderful to read your keen insights into topics related to asexuality. Your argument that queerness is best defined as the opposite of heteronormativity resolves a lot of the issues around who gets to claim that label -- and who doesn't. I'm also glad you're addressing violence, abuse and trauma faced by ace people in a world that defines everything in terms of sex. Even if they haven't experienced those things, many aces have had painful experiences in relationships.

Expand full comment
Diana McEwen's avatar

I'm always cautious about terms that group disparate things together (relevant here, "LGBTQIA+" and "queer") because they have a tendency to treat one person's priorities as co-extensive with another's. Hence, I tend to see the 'queer community' as a loose confederation rather than a homogeneous whole. By way of example, the interests of trans-people and lesbians can overlap in some circumstances (e.g. discrimination) and clash in others (e.g. single-sex [I use the word advisedly] spaces). Hence, even though it's exasperating, debates over who is 'queer' may be inevitable. I tend to assume people at least have goodwill even if they say something irksome.

Looking at the big picture, however, I think we will have to work together on a political level as time goes by. Looking at political discourse, I think semi-compulsory natalism will emerge as the driving idea in the West over the next decade (especially if the world is saddled with President Vance). For obvious reasons, this may prove particularly oppressive to the non-heterosexual population. Feuding over who is 'queer enough may' become a luxury nobody can afford.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts