Queerness Isn't About Oppression

Lessons from Asexuality

“Asexuals aren’t queer because they aren’t oppressed.”

As an asexuality researcher, I’ve heard some version of this (wrongheaded) opinion more times than I can count.

As I recently shared on Twitter, I see two main problems with this claim that asexual people “aren’t oppressed” and therefore “aren’t queer.” Let’s dig in.

1) Queerness isn’t defined by oppression.

Queerness is actually defined by an oppositional relationship with normativity. This isn’t a new argument. It’s been true since the inception of queer theory and queer politics in the early 1990s.

We often use heteronormativity as a synonym for sexual normativity. But they aren’t synonyms. Heteronormativity is merely one very important element of sexual normativity: namely, the societal pressure that situates heterosexuality as supposedly “natural” and “ideal.”

However, focusing only on the “hetero” part of sexual normativity misses various other ways that sexual normativity operates in our society.

For example, part of sexual normativity involves the assumption that everyone does (and should) experience sexual attraction. The term “compulsory sexuality” is often the term used to describe this normative (and institutionally enforced) assumption that everyone does and should experience sexual attraction. Look it (and allonormativity) up if you want to learn more.

Asexuality challenges the normative assumption that everyone does (and should) experience sexual attraction. Therefore, it’s queer.

2) Asexual oppression exists.

To restate: queerness is not defined by the experience of oppression. It’s defined by an oppositional relationship with sexual normativity. But even if we accept the argument that queerness is defined by oppression, it’s simply wrong to claim that asexual people don’t face oppressive forces.

It’s oppressive to exist in a society that tells you you’re sick or wrong for not experiencing sexual attraction.

As I wrote last year, many asexual people experience pathologization from medical professionals. In fact, some research shows that asexual people are more likely than any other LGBTQIA+ group to be offered conversion therapy. This often comes from therapists and other medical providers.

In some jurisdictions, marriages could be voided if not “legitimized” by consummation. Even when those legal pressures don’t exist, it’s often culturally assumed that sex is a necessary component of a “real” romantic partnership.

This is just a brief summary, but the main point is that it’s simply wrong to claim that asexual people aren’t oppressed.

Why the obsession with oppression?

Let’s return to the (erroneous) idea of oppression as a supposed requisite of queerness. Does this mean wealthy white cisgender gay men aren’t queer? There’s an argument they aren’t—because many of them are actually very invested in normativity (eg white supremacy, capitalism).

Why, then, the focus on asexual people as not being adequately oppressed? Probably because you’re simply defining oppression as “experiencing same-sex attraction.”

That’s a really shallow queer analysis.

I also think it’s worth acknowledging that it’s kind of strange to define queerness through oppression. As a queer person, I know that defining my queerness as an experience of oppression is misleading. Queerness brings me joy, community, self-understanding, agency, and choice.

Of course, being queer and living in a society that is hostile to sexual non-normativity (like the United States) means that oppression can feel like an inevitable part of the queer experience.

But part of the goal of the queer movement is to build a world where no one is oppressed (especially on the basis of sexuality or gender). If you think the defining element of queerness is the experience of oppression, wouldn’t this logically imply that the goal of the queer movement is to end queerness by ending queer oppression?

I also find myself wondering, why are people so invested in gatekeeping who can call themselves queer? If queerness is all about being oppressed, then what is there to guard?

The very phenomenon of queer gatekeeping suggests that there are positive things to be gained through queerness (like community, joy, self-understanding, agency, a sense of sparkle, etc.). If queerness is really all about oppression, there would be no need to gatekeep. Few people would want to be let in.

Liberation is not a limited resource. We expand the power of queer liberation by acknowledging that sexual normativity comes in various packaging. Including asexual people in queer politics doesn’t shrink everyone else’s slice of the pie. It brings other desserts to the table.

And yes, I do mean cake.

Want to support my research on asexuality? Consider becoming a contributing subscriber by clicking on the button above. You can also subscribe for free or follow me on Twitter @CantonWiner. Regardless of whatever decision you make, I am committed to keeping my work free, without paywalls. Consider your paid membership a token of appreciation, an investment in research on asexuality, and a small but meaningful way to join a community that shares your interests.