Someone linked to me recently said that they had never seen a “cogent argument” for why a-spec exclusion is respectability politics.
Respectability politics is a phrase that describes two very closely linked principles:
First, it blames a marginalized community for its own oppression, and second, it says, “if you just behaved in the way the oppressor class behaves, you would have social freedom and capital as well.”
This results in members of the marginalized group treating anyone they see as not adhering properly to the oppressor class’s values as inferior and unworthy of association.
And since one part of the oppressor class’s values is the violent expulsion and mistreatment of those who do not conform, respectability politics inevitably leads to exclusionary gatekeeping, to the tune of, “look how good we are, because we’re nothing like those people you associate us with.”
This happens in almost every oppressed group. It is most vibrantly researched and understood in terms of Black american communities, but it’s everywhere.
It happens when the mentally disabled distance ourselves with the physically disabled, claiming that we’re nothing like those people because at least they can still work. It happens when the physically disabled distance ourselves form the mentally disabled, because we’re nothing like those people, because they’re not crazy. It happens when non-muslim Arabs distance ourselves from islam, because we’re nothing liek those people, we’re good christian folk who would never hurt you.
In all cases, instead of saying to overlapping oppressed groups, “you are valuable people, even if your needs are different from my own, and I would be proud to band together to create a stronger force working towards a better world for all of us,” the respectability politician say to the oppressor, “You see? I am not like them. I am safe to elevate to your status. I will not force radical revolution. Let me into your class, and I will make sure the classes still exist by engaging in oppressive behaviour with you.”
Respectability politics is ignoring your own history and culture in favour of the oppressor’s, so that the oppressor will consider assimilating you and you will have the power and safety of being in that oppressive class, rather than abolishing the power structure in its entirety.
So, now that we know what it is, let’s talk about how that relates to asexual, aromantic, and a-spec people.
Limiting ourselves strictly to oppression stemming from not performing the gendered aspects of attraction correctly (also referred to as orientation based oppression), we see a few things.
The “correct” experience of attraction under heterosexism is one of two things:
Be a man who has been identified by others as a man since the moment of birth, attracted exclusively and completely to women, or
Be a woman who has been identified by others as a woman since the moment of birth, attracted exclusively and completely to men.
Any divergence from from these two acceptable roles is violently punished by straight hegemony, through any of several avenues: financial, legal, social, medical, etc.
But, there are perhaps not very clear definitions. What does “exclusive” mean? It means, “only; to no others, ever.” That one should be obvious.
But, here’s the more difficult part. What does “completely” mean? It means, “in all the ways Straightness expects of you: sexually, romantically, aesthetically, intimately.”
What evidence do I have of these definitions, you might ask. Well, there are literally thousands of pieces of direct testimony from people both on this website and long before it existed who have been punished for any and all of these aspects of deviation from Straight norms.
I will provide a small sample here, hopefully enough for anyone interested to begin working from. But this is not a repository of firsthand testimony. This is an explanation of respectability politics.
The negative affects of asexual erasure on what should otherwise be a relatively mentally healthy adolescence
Asexual people face pervasive and directed attacks against themselves and their identities in a near constant landslide that strongly echoes other forms of sexual and gender prejudice.
A spec people are strongly excluded by straight people for being a spec, regardless of other avenues or absences of attraction, and regardless of gender identity.
Asexual people face expulsion from their social and religious groups for coming out.
Asexuality is considered invalid and sinful under western christian doctrine. Depending on the interaction between religion and law in their areas, their marriages can be dissolved.
Asexual people are still actively pathologized by modern medicine, which is used as a valid reason to engage in conversion therapy, instead of a chance to educate.
Asexual and aromantic people’s actual variety and life experiences are ignored in favour of strawmanning all asexual people as chaste and all aromantic people as hypersexual.
Asexuality is well known as an oppressed identity even in respectability focused circles, because it is explicitly not considered a safe cover. Why? Because even in the most skewed samples possible, straight people still think a-spec people are queer. In more reasonably bias-protected samples, the hatred is even more obvious.
The rape of asexual and a spec people in an attempt to cure them of that “dysfunction” is very pervasive, and used to retraumatize rape survivors in the name of protecting the Real And Acceptable LGBT People.
This is a very short list of the kinds of often violent discrimination that asexual, aromantic, and a-spec people face.
So, I believe at this point we can agree that a-spec people are widely persecuted as a direct result of the way their attraction to other people manifests, or more specifically fails to manifest.
In short, a spec people are abused because they aren’t considered proper and correct under heterosexism.
This finally brings us to the point. Sorry it took so long, but I needed to cover my bases.
What do we call it when a marginalized group is blamed for their own oppression?
What do we call it when that blaming is explicitly used to recreate oppressive structure in a way that can afford other members of a marginalized group greater social capital for separating themselves from the “bad ones” because at least we’re not like that?
That’s why a spec exclusionary behaviour is respectability politics.
So I hope that’s clear and logically sound enough for you.
gummygunk
areudirty
dailybridgerton
jacobvanloon
stormborns
izzy806
pixelskylines
germansingergirl
