you gonna bac up your claim that cisgender straight people who lack sexual attraction have always been queer? or is speaking out your ass all you can do
Sure! Let’s go! I’m always up to stretch both my lgbt history muscles. Sorry if it took awhile but I am passionate about this stuff and wanted to do some good writing and find some really great sources for you! 😊
In 1869 a humanitarian and journalist named Karl-Maria Kertbeny published pamphlets to oppose the sodomy law in Prussia. In these pamphlet he is widely regarded as beginning the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” in the academic mainstream; though, it is likely these were lgbt terms used long before that time. In this same pamphlet advocating explicitly for gay rights, Kertbeny refers to those who engage only in masturbation and not in sex with others as seperate from straight people, coining an entirely different term: “monosexual.” Now, this term is outdated and widely used the m-spec sub community to refer to straight, gay, and lesbian folks lacking multi-gender attraction, but he states very explicitly in all his work that this term is meant to refer to people we would now understand to be asexual.
A little later, in the 1890’s we have sexologist, founder of the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee, and an openly gay man himself, Magnus Hirschfeld. He published his work “Sappho and Sokrates”: a pamphlet he wrote with the task of explaining the lgbt community to straight people. He makes multiple references to and defences of what he called “anesthesia sexuals.” Again, an outdated term, but as you can see, both gay advocates and straight allies referenced us as being part of the community like it was nothing.
Meanwhile, we have the lovely Emma Trosse, an academic peer to Hirschfeld. She discussed gay rights—especially the rights of lesbians and non-binary people—very openly and wrote multiple papers on the subject. But at her heart, Trosse was a researcher, and so her most famous work, naturally, was an indepth study of what she referred to as “counter-sexualities” as stand in for what we now know as the broader lgbt community. In this work she coins the phrase Asensuality, stating “the author has the courage to admit to this category” officially coming out in her own study! Damn lady! We love her. The Schwules Museum (literally the Gay Museum), a famous German LGBTQ+ museum dedicated to collections focusing on the history of lgbt research, features her work prominently. She also holds the distinction of having been banned as a “degenerate” author in Austria-Hungary, the German Empire, and Russia for that very work. On top of that, she was the first woman on record to have a treatise in defense of lgbt people and our community published in 1895, even before her colleague Hirschfeld had his first works published.
As you can see 19th century Germany was a hub of lgbt theory, research, and activism still studied by lgbt historians today. It is widely credited as being a period of time that brought our history into print and the mainstream. And ace people, as I noted before, have been involved both in mention and in activism from the beginning according to both prominent allies, gay folks, and ace folks who were scholars during this period.
But, now lets move over with a bigger hop to the sexual revolution in America; which mirrored the German one in many ways! This is the period of time a lot of people, especially americans, think of as the start of our mainstream history—which as you can see a very americancentric idea, but I digress. Even here we have asexuals represented among the community by diverse members of the community.
You’ve probably heard of the Asexual Manifesto, written by Lisa Orlando and published by the New York Radical Feminists. A very important document to ace-spec people, it defines us as a sexuality seperate and distinct from straight; but you aren’t interested in what we have to say about ourselves and our experiences so lets move on to other lgbt people validating us.
Kinsey—himself an m-spec or multisexual person—recognized us in his research, which he picked up from at the point our lovely Hirschfeld left off, basically. This was later expanded on by Michael D Storm, author of Theories of Sexual Orientation. He reimagined the Kinsey Scale as a two dimensional map, which became the beginnings of the modern Kinsey Scale used in the lgbt community today. He posited it was better able to distinguish asexuals from m-spec people as it defined them less based on sexual preferences, or lack their of, based in gender (which would put both sexualities squarely in the centre of the 1D scale), and more on their self described experiences of attraction. So that’s right, you read correctly; the latest rendition of the Kinsey Scale was created in response to a piece that was published after Kinsey’s original studies specifically to better include asexuals who were already featured in the study and scale.
Then we move to the “The Sexually Oppressed.” Published in 1977, it was a book that did exactly what it set out to do: describe people who were oppressed by heteronormative society and their struggles. It was published by social worker, Harvey L. Gochros and featured the work of Myra T. Johnson in a piece describing the way in which mainstream culture affected asexual women specifically, and how straight feminists often shamed and gatekept them from liberating movements, while straight men continued to be an omnipresent threat via corrective assault and forced institutionalization. It was actually a text book in my college, very good read—goes into the ableism present in sexual oppression as well. I highly recommend it.
Also, just as a bonus, I’ve included an extra link below to “On the Racialization of Asexuality” by Ianna Hawkins Owen. She goes into depths about how the allosexual vs asexual discourse we see starting in America in the 70's—which has turned into the modern global “ace discourse” of today—started with nationalist discussions that have their roots in white supremacy, the white construction of binary womanhood, and chattel slavery. An offering from my university days.
Anyways, I hope you and any other lovely readers who come across this enjoy and educate yourselves a bit. Knowledge is power!
P.S. I could not find “The Sexually Oppressed” available online for some reason (but mind you, I am very bad at computers) so I linked a website that should show you the nearest library in your area that carries it. It’s a very popular social work read.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/03/asexuality-history-internet-identity-queer-archive.html
http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~pbarfuss/Asexual-Manifesto-Lisa-Orlando.pdf
https://books.google.ca/books?id=XbgTAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT113&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=IH2GCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://www.worldcat.org/title/sexually-oppressed/oclc/925168401&referer=brief_results
Decided to answer a very stinky ask for pride month! Some more asexual and aromantic history below, with some sources for both a quick read and a less quick read.
Also, be warned, my nerves are frayed, and I was certainly less polite this time. Sorry for that, guys 😔
I really do try to keep my cool, but the sass slips when it becomes obvious someone isn’t actually interested with the factual answer to their question, y’know?
https://anam-writes.tumblr.com/post/653574281024897024/its-crazy-how-none-of-the-sources-you-linked
it’s crazy how none of the sources you linked actually say cishet aces were considered lgbt, just that having no attraction to other genders
What a saga. But honestly, guys, I’m just here for some nice pride month time! Ace history, scrumptious, and super intersectionally relevant.
https://anam-writes.tumblr.com/post/653579554112274432/thr-golden-orchid-society-was-for-all-women-who
thr golden orchid society was for all women who didn’t wanna get married and wasn’t an lgbt group. what’s next you’re gonna claim aces are l
Hey, @rittz! Hope you don’t mind me responding to you here so I can keep everything nice and orderly on my end.
There’s an issue I have with this argument, you see. And it’s one I see a whole bunch.
“Linking the asexual community’s history to century old lgbt+ movements does not have bearing on contemporary discussion,” (if I may paraphrase) is a common view.
And while you and others are sort of correct, you are sort of not. It wouldn’t necessarily be relevant on its own; but contextually, it is.
If it was a matter of my saying “17th—20th century China had a prominent Lesbian-Asexual woman’s alliance in the Golden Orchid” then your point would make sense. Asexuals were prominent figures in one queer community, one time, in one culture? That would be nothing.
But it’s consistent. Throughout history, everywhere you find queer people you find asexuals among them.
Greek Antiquity, the cult of Dionysus being one of the more sexually liberated political-religious groups. They were associated strongly with sexual fluidity: sapphic love, achillean love, bisexuality, and asexuality as well. So much so, that among the many Masks of Dionysus in Ancient Greek culture and literature, there were aspects of him defined solely by either his bisexuality or his asexuality. Thus, chapter 4 of this handy book about archeological knowledge on all things Dionysus, the Cult of Dionysus, and the Theatre Dionysia, being called “The Asexuality of Dionysus.”
https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Masks_of_Dionysus/O_QkAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=isbn:0801480620
So, an ancient group of gender and sexual fluidity and diversity prominently features asexuality. Okay. Let us go on.
That comes far before the Golden Orchid Society, which we already discussed.
If you scroll all the way up, you see I give a timeline in my first post about the prominence of asexuals and asexuality in the queer community during the LGBT+ golden age in 19th century Germany. But to summarize:
The most famous gay scholar of the time—openly gay man, Magnus Hirschfeld—publishes “Sappho and Sokrates” as a defining document for straight people to educate themselves on queer folks with. Who does he include ion there? Trans folks, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and—you guessed it!—asexuals! His contemporary colleague, Emma Trosse, wrote most frequently in defense of who she saw as being the most underrepresented in her community: non-binary folks and lesbians. And guess what? She was asexual. She wrote a paper on “counter-sexualities” at the time and came out in her own paper. Her work in the modern day is featured in the Schwules Museum, literally translated to the Gay Museum. So, clearly this asexual woman, married to a man was considered to be part of the community in her time AND our time, including by her more famed gay colleague, and the Gay Museum in Berlin.
(You can find all those links up at the top post)
Then I got up to America’s own lgbt+ renaissance. The Asexual Manifesto, the Kinsey Scale work, and subsequent rework, and testimony from members of the bisexual community all place us firmly in the lgbt+ community from the year 1940—1990.
(You can find links to Kinsey’s work, the context for it, the Asexual Manifesto, and more up at the top again!)
And here are references to the fact that, at the time of the original pride movement, we were considered a subsection of bisexuality, because we were mistakenly being defined by our lack of gender preference and sexual fluidity instead of our lack of attraction in general, with some choice quotes.
“Many bisexual respondents described bisexuality as a potential or as an essential quality that many people possess, but that only some people express through actual feelings of attraction or sexual behavior.
“According to this definition, people can be – and are – bisexual without ever experiencing an attraction to one sex or the other and without ever having sexual relations with one sex or the other.
“In contrast to lesbian respondents, most of whom define a bisexual as a person who feels attracted to or has sexual relations with both sexes, very few bisexual women define bisexuals as people who necessarily have these actual emotional and physical experiences.”
https://books.google.ca/books?id=RhWntJf7EpIC&pg=PA207&dq=%22many+bisexual+respondents+described+bisexuality+as%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22many%20bisexual%20respondents%20described%20bisexuality%20as%22&f=false
And an extra goody from an article by the Gay Liberator, 1971 “Trans Lib includes transvestites, transsexuals, and hermaphrodites of any sexual manifestation and of all sexes—heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual.”
https://voices.revealdigital.org/?a=d&d=BDHIIHBB19710101.1.10&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN—————1
Then we have today, where you really just have to look around to see asexuals. We’re here, hi! Go to pride and you’ll see us. Join an club and you’ll see us. Hang out in a sapphic server and you’ll see us. Talk to me right here! (Hello! I’m right here, being on the ace spectrum.)
So you see the issue I’m having correct?
“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were prominent members of a sexually fluid movement in ancient Greece, we’re talking about today!”
“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were prominent members of a queer feminist group from 16th - 20th century China, we’re talking about today.”
“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were apart of the 19th century queer golden age in Germany that first brought our movement in mainstream print, we’re talking about today!”
“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were part of the movement for pride and queer liberation from the 1940′s to the 90′s, and that asexuals alive today are old enough to remember being part of that movement. We are talking about literally right NOW kinda today!”
“It doesn’t matter that asexuals were a subsection of the bisexual community that only recently split off!”
And then, finally, the ask from that original nonny up there: “can you back up that cis straight people lacking sexual attraction have always been queer?”
Essentially, well sure, aces are here now, but it’s not like they ALWAYS been here!
When we point to ourselves as part of the community today, we are asked when we got here. When we point to how far back we’ve been here, we are asked, “how is that relevant to today?”
Because we were asked how long we’ve been here.
So if I’m answering in a LOOOOOOONG way, I hope you’ll forgive me. Because it’s clear that you need a line drawn between where we were, and where we are. I’m not sure if that’s because you were not present to the beginning of this conversation, or if it was because you were unaware of the history.
Asexuals have been in lgbt history for as long as there has been lgbt history. And we are present in the community today. The question is not, whether we are here, have been here, or not. The question is, are you going to accept that, or not?
Thank you for reading. I know it was a long reply to a short comment. But I hope it was useful.
