Brighteyes-Vanderde: Erasure?

greenchestnuts:

brighteyes-vanderde:

Am I allowed to be angry when someone says that it’s ok that my identity wasn’t mentioned in a discussion about asexuality and queerness? I think it’s perfectly appropriate to be angry when someone says that I ought to be fine with reading between the lines in order to see my identity discussed.

Asexuals are ignored in general conversation all the time. Aromantic people (of any sexual orientation) are ignored or overlooked in conversations even more so. I’m pretty sure I’m entitled to be angry when erasure occurs, especially when the conversation is ABOUT asexuality!

Omission of aromantics from a discussion of all other asexual + romantic orientations is usually because people don’t have any idea where to put aromantics, so it’s more convenient to pretend we don’t exist. It’s not for rhetorical effect.

I also find that erasure of aromantics can often (but not always) be a symptom of erasure of asexuality in general. There’s often this tendency to try to reclassify asexuals based on their romantic inclinations: a heteroromantic asexual is really just a straight person; a homoromantic ace is really just gay. It’s a way for people to avoid accepting that some people are, in fact, not just gay, straight, or bi; by sorting us into other categories that correspond to romantic orientations they can avoid thinking too much about the ways that asexuality breaks their accepted paradigms.

And of course, aromantics break this. Because they can’t just reduce us to our romantic orientation in order to try and force us out of asexuality and into the categories they are more comfortable with. We’re an unpleasant reminder of the fact that asexuality can’t really be reduced to just being a less-sexual gay, straight, bi, etc. person. 

And so, (outside of occasional rather illogical attempts to somehow classify us as straight), people tend to conveniently ignore the fact that we exist. They tend to ignore the data that would have forced them to acknowledge the legitimacy of asexuality. Because if the mere concept of asexuality breaks their brains, aromanticism breaks them even more.

This often comes up in discussions about relationships between queer and asexual communities, when people try to avoid answering the question of whether asexuality is queer by ignoring it and reducing us to our romantic orientations as a standard - romantic attraction to the same gender is queer, to the opposite is not; it’s a way of “answering” the question by ignoring asexuaity as a distinct category - it’s a cop out. 

Aromanticism, of course, breaks this system. Because they cannot reduce us to either gay or straight by our romantic orientations. We cannot be grouped into the old systems. We again are a reminder of the fact that they cannot simply judge asexuals by romantic orientation in order to avoid thinking about our asexuality too much. Acknowledging aromantics means acknowledging asexuality. It means acknowledging that our existence means thinking in new ways. It requires changing the system to fit us, instead of changing us to fit the existing system. And many people just don’t want to admit that - and so they conveniently forget about us.

(also hell yes you are allowed to be angry about this)

Source: notunprepared

Internalized Homophobia and LGB Aces

greenchestnuts:

I’m talking to someone about the Trevor Project’s treatment of asexuals (among other things), and she asked, “In terms of harm reduction for the greatest number of people does it do any significant harm for legitimately asexual LGB people to have the possibility of internalized homophobia be brought up (cuz I know it does a whole hell of a lot of harm to repressed LGB people for it to not be brought up)”?

I have a definite opinion about this, but I’m not LGB, so I wanted to ask those aces who are, in a non-leading way. How would you feel about people suggesting to you that maybe you’re not ace but identify as such because of internalized homophobia, and do you think a question or suggestion like that would be harmful?

(Tagging this with LGBTetc tags as well for visibility.)

I’m an aromantic asexual (though I do identify as queer), and so maybe not your tartget audience, but personally I think it’s incredibly dangerous. 

Telling someone, anyone that their experience is false because they must have internalized homophobia isn’t helpful at all. Especially among asexuals, most people have spent huge amounts of time trying to understand their identity, and most have already seriously considered the possibility that they might be LGBT. And so to offhandedly dismiss their identity as internalized homophobia like you know more about their own idendity  than they do, when they have probably spent years thinking about this and you probably don’t know anything about them is incredibly insulting. 

Furthermore, this isn’t something that’s only targeted at asexuals: it’s also something that’s commonly thrown at bisexuals, when people tell them that they are just “confused” or “trying to hard to be straight” or “too scared to come out as fully gay”. Are there possibly some people for whom this is true? Perhaps, but probably only a small minority. And just because some might be something else doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to deny, question, and doubt, the legitimacy of the identities of an entire group. 

Also, I can say this: people who are trying to repress their sexuality and deny their desires because of internalized homophobia will probably not try to hide behind the asexual community - there is too much of a culture of introspection, exploration and deep consideration, which is the exact opposite of trying to repress themselves would try to hide behind. Furthermore, if their internalized homophobia is so terrible, what the hell would they be doing IDing as a sexual minority that already gets a lot of flack from heterosexists? 

However, I do think there’s a huge difference between just talking about internalized homophobia, and actually singling out asexuals and telling them that they are products of internalized homophobia. Internalized homophobia is an important thing to bring up, but it can and should be done so without casting negative implications on any identity by accusing them as being merely the result of internalized homophobia.

to everything strange, inchoate: On erasure and discrimination in the queer community

metafictionally:

Hey Tumblr, ‘sup. So I’m in charge of chairing tonight’s LMU GSA meeting, and the subject is erasure/discrimination within the queer community and within queer-friendly (supposedly) media. I have a little by way of media (videos and such) and I have some discussion questions for the group, but…

There’s  good post here about an article that mentions asexual erasure, and similarities to/differences from bisexual erasure here. An excerpt:

Although it was published in Jan. 2000—before the birth of the asexual community—the author was clearly aware of asexuality and the issue of asexual erasure….Not only does he recognize the issue, but—even without there being an asexual community—he has considerable insight into the matter:

“My regret is made keen by the convergences between bisexual and asexual erasure, most notably the refusal by both self-identified straights and self-identified gays to acknowledge either category. Thus asexuals, like bisexuals, are prone to being accused of duplicity or false consciousness, or, more specifically, of being closeted gays.


The decision to defer a discussion of asexuals for another day, however, is supported by the undertheorized divergences between bisexuality and asexuality, which suggest that the two topics deserve separate analysis. While both doubled and absent desire appear to threaten straights and gays, they do so in quite different ways. To take one crude cut at that difference, consider the disparate ways in which the time-honored conflation of sexuality and sin ramifies across bisexuality and asexuality. If this conflation leads some to view bisexuals as particularly culpable because of their “promiscuous” desire for both sexes…it leads some of the same people to view asexuals as particularly pure.”

Also, I’m not sure if it’s exactly what you’re looking for, but there’s an excellent paper about bisexual erasure from the San Francisco Human Rights comission that has a detailed analysis of Bisexual erasure, and many of the points are applicable (with slight adaptation) to many other forms of erasure.  For Example, take the following list of examples of bisexual erasure: 

Assuming that everyone you meet is either heterosexual or homosexual.

Supporting and understanding a bisexual identity for young people because you identified

“that way” before you came to your “real” lesbian/gay/heterosexual identity.

Automatically assuming romantic couplings of two women are lesbian, or two men are gay,

or a man and a woman are heterosexual.

Expecting a bisexual to identify as gay or lesbian when coupled with the “same” sex/gender.

Expecting a bisexual to identify as heterosexual when coupled with the “opposite”

sex/gender.

Believing that bisexual men spread HIV/AIDS to heterosexuals.

Believing that bisexual women spread HIV/AIDS to lesbians.

Thinking bisexual people haven’t made up their minds.

Refusing to accept someone’s self-identification as bisexual if the person hasn’t had sex with

both men and women.

Expecting bisexual people to get services, information, and education from heterosexual

service agencies for their “heterosexual side” and then go to gay and/or lesbian service

agencies for their “homosexual side.”

Feeling bisexuals just want to have their cake and eat it too.

Assuming a bisexual person would want to fulfill your sexual fantasies or curiosities.

Thinking bisexuals only have committed relationships with “opposite” sex/gender partners.

Being gay or lesbian and asking your bisexual friends about their lovers or whom they are

dating only when that person is the “same” sex/gender.

Assuming that bisexuals, if given the choice, would prefer to be in an “opposite” gender/sex

coupling to reap the social benefits of a “heterosexual” pairing.

Assuming bisexuals would be willing to “pass” as anything other than bisexual.

Believing bisexuals are confused about their sexuality.

Feeling that you can’t trust a bisexual because they aren’t really gay or lesbian, or aren’t really

heterosexual.

Refusing to use the word bisexual in the media when reporting on people attracted to more

than one gender, instead substituting made-up terms such as “gay-ish.”

Using the terms phase or stage or confused or fence-sitter or bisexual or AC/DC or switch-hitter as

slurs or in an accusatory way.

Assuming bisexuals are incapable of monogamy.

Feeling that bisexual people are too outspoken and pushy about their visibility and rights.

Looking at a bisexual person and automatically thinking of her/his sexuality rather than

seeing her/him as a whole, complete person. Not confronting a biphobic remark or joke for fear of being identified as bisexual.

Assuming bisexual means “available.”

Thinking that bisexual people will have their rights when lesbian and gay people win theirs.

Expecting bisexual activists and organizers to minimize bisexual issues (such as HIV/AIDS,

violence, basic civil rights, military service, same-sex marriage, child custody, adoption, etc.)

and to prioritize the visibility of “lesbian and/or gay” issues.

Avoiding mentioning to friends that you are involved with a bisexual or working with a

bisexual group because you are afraid they will think you are a bisexual.

Many, though not all, of these example may be similar to the kinds of erasure trans or ace people face. Of course, ace and trans people also face forms of erasure unique to their own groups as well.