Ace No Matter What

This blog is run by an agender ace lesbian - hi! I am vocally supportive of bi and pan lesbians, all trans identities, and anyone else whose identity doesn't fit into a neat LGBT box. Exclusionists of any kind are not tolerated. (Everything okay to reblog unless otherwise stated) Avatar from https://picrew.me/share?cd=r71YOtIJo0.

[silly-media-enjoyer]

Image Description: The "I bring a sort of X vibe to X that X don't really like" edited to say "I bring a sort of all these rules are made up vibe to sexuality and gender that exclusionists don't really like"

[trippiemagic]

how could u leave this in the tags

[witches-bottle-deactivated20241]

I was here at the time and my voice is incredibly soft compared to the others.

[koffinrott]

Just so like... it's clear... anyone who censors words that contain "man" or "men" to anything like "xxn" that's TERF shit.

Any reference to women/womanhood that solely revolves around having a uterus or "womb" is TERF shit.

Any sentence where the OP says they support people being "trans identified" with quotes around ""transwomen"" or ""transmen"" is TERF shit.

I'm seeing a lot of you baby Tumblr gays out there not knowing what these specific TERF dogwhistles look like.

"Wombxxn" is an incredibly dumb way of spelling "woman" that treats the word "man" like a slur and also reduces women to their ability to give birth.

"Trans identified" is their way of saying "this person calls themselves trans, but I don't believe they are."

Saying "People should be allowed to identify however they wish, but we still need to protect women/children" IS TERF SHIT.

Learn to identify this garbage, because not all TERFs are going to spell out their intolerance for you. Some of them are going to try and seem reasonable and polite and normal, and it's fucking dangerous to our community.

Also unpack any internalized transphobia and your transmedicalism, because both those things will have you quickly siding with TERFs and bigots.

[maryhall]

Unpopular (?) opinion:

When I was young and wondering why I hadn't experienced a crush yet, the internet said I was probably just a late bloomer. They urged me not to identify as aroace because I could change my mind later on.

And looking back, like… so?

If I had been a late bloomer, who cares?

I was 13. I felt comfort in the aroace community. I didn’t feel like a weirdo for once in my life, surrounded by people who were like me. But I was urged to not join these communities until I became an adult in case I changed my mind about being ace. So I didn’t. And I paid for that.

Who cares? If you’re young and feel like you’re aroace, then you’re aroace. If you “change your mind” later, it’s okay. No one is going to be born and know themselves 100%. I genuinely thought I was alloromantic once, but now know I’m not.

Speaking from experience, I would rather have kids be “wrong” about their sexuality than feel like they have no place of belonging.

We shouldn’t gatekeep aroace folk because of their age. It hurts. It makes kids feel like they are the freaks society tells them they are.

[sandersstudies]

I speak often about the time I spent in the ace community as a teenager. I was a late bloomer who realized later that I was bisexual. I was identifying as asexual from ages 14-17 and as questioning until I was almost 20.

And my time in the ace community was actually very helpful for me to think about my sexuality as I entered adulthood, and people in the community were very supportive, even when I realized I was not asexual.

Thanks aroace community! I’m not one of you but I will look back on my time with you fondly.

[birdofprey1234]

The way that exclusionists treat ace and aro people often reminds me of how the average person would treat me when I started being open as non-binary. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it a thousand times, we are not enemies. Our experiences do not oppose each other, they are intertwined. If you’re ace, if you’re aromantic, if you’re any variation thereupon; your home is here. You belong here, too. You are beautiful, and powerful; and you don’t have to explain yourself to anyone. You are a valued part of this community.

[spoopdeedoop]

i’m crying

[trials-of-a-spirit-worker]

Aces are family in the community. It’d be wise not to forget that.

[zygodactylus]

Can you honestly, on the spot, explain the difference between romantic and platonic attraction *without* bringing up sex?

Yes

No

Maybe?

I'm alterous/something equivalent; there is no difference to me

Some other thing

Voting ended onSep 11, 2023

just want to see a thing. reblog for more data.

[caffeineecold]

nothing has been more important to my being queer than when i went to my first pride parade, got seperated from my group, had a panic attack about it and was sitting on the side of the road holding a tiny genderfluid flag and freaking out. then this six foot five drag queen in four inch heels appeared from literally nowhere and sat down next to me. i, this scared-shitless trans bi kid at pride for the first time, very nervously told her she looked pretty and i told her my name and that i got lost and didn't feel like i should be at pride and she held my hand and said "oh, honey, everybody deserves to be here, especially you. pride is for everybody who's ever gotten lost, who's been scared of who they are or where they are. you think we never been scared before? pride's for you, honey, because you're scared. you don't have to be proud right now, but you're gonna be one day, honey, i'm sure of it."

i found my group soon after that and i never saw that queen again but to this day i am convinced i met an angel.

[gendercensus]

If you've got 5 minutes to spare, could I interest you in a short survey about titles? Everyone of any age, gender or location is invited, and it's open until at least Monday 14th August 2023.

A quick survey about titles

Hello! Thanks for being here. This is a survey for literally anyone to fill in, every response from everyone is helpful. If you speak Englis

You can see a spreadsheet of participation (including a little bit of demographic data) here.

Thank you!

[gendercensus]

Tuesday 8th August 2023 - Day 2

So far so good - 2,500 responses already and still going! And it's open to everyone regardless of gender identity or cis/trans status, click here to participate.

The last survey with this focus was in 2019, and it had 3,179 in two weeks. So there's only about 700 to go, and we're only on day 2, what??

You know me, I've set up a public spreadsheet that updates automatically, showing how many people have participated and where from and other non-biasing demographics. There's some graphs and stats to mull, click here to enjoy.

And finally, the survey does ask for your country of residence, but any country that gets under 10 responses will be redacted in the public spreadsheet of results for privacy. The following countries have almost got 10 responses:

🇨🇿 Czech Republic (Czechia) - 8 responses 🇮🇳 India - 6 🇵🇭 Philippines - 6 🇲🇽 Mexico - 5 🇹🇷 Turkey - 5

So if you are from any of these countries or you've got followers who are, please do participate and reblog this blog post to make sure your region is statistically represented. You can also RT this tweet, share this Facebook post, and/or boost this Mastodon post - all sharing is super helpful. :) If you have ~alternative platforms~ on the go you can always share the survey URL anywhere: https://forms.gle/WiSTQvy7qrmfsCweA

Thanks folks!

[ Survey link ]

[redhairandpronouns]

was thinking about infighting and like. they all see us the same. from the wildest queerest fagdyke to a cis gay guy. we are the same to them. the weird queers are not like. ruining your precious community. we're a part of it

[redhairandpronouns]

@ exclusionists:

[karmiccollector-deactivated2024]

We are all Faggots in the eyes of the Fash. Stand United or Die Separately.

[cloquirkdoll]

truly few things are more sneer-worthy to me than a gay deeply invested in respectability and assimilation

[anatomical-anomaly]

When you live life as a woman, society teaches you that your worth stems from how attractive you are to others.

If you’re sapphic - if your identity is based around being a woman who is primarily attracted to other women - it makes sense for your ideal world to be one without men. You might not consider men to be an important or necessary part of your life because, at the end of the day, your community and relationships are centered around women.

Being transmasc and suddenly losing the community that you had as a woman can be painful. Suddenly, because you are now viewed as a man, you are no longer seen as desirable, and thus lose your worth in the eyes of those people. Suddenly, because you are a man, you are viewed as someone dangerous, someone who cannot be trusted.

People of all kinds back off from you: straight men, because you are no longer a potential object of attraction; straight women, because they think there is a risk of you being attracted to them and so you are viewed as a potential perpetrator; lesbians, for both reasons.

Amatonormativity and heteronormativity play a role in this because it is both assumed that everyone desires a relationship, and that everyone is straight. Being aromantic and asexual, it’s frustrating to be placed into a role that doesn’t even apply to you. When you’re even remotely friendly to someone of the opposite gender, your actions are misinterpreted to be romantic by people who view you through the lens of being cis and allo. Others see you as a creep when you don’t even think of them or their bodies in the way that they think you do.

People who know nothing about you will ignore your sexuality and lived experiences to focus on the fact that in this moment, you are a man.

If you’re someone who thinks, “all men are shit except for my trans friends/gay friends/my current partner,” you still have some work to do. Because there are men you will come across who are trans, and you’ll have no idea. There are people who will look like men but are actually transfem or nonbinary or masculine women, and you’ll have no idea.

It’s unfair to determine whether you will treat someone with respect or not based on their gender alone. You cannot know someone’s personality or experiences just by looking at them. It’s unfair to treat someone as if they’re some sort of insentient creature who can only ever act a certain way, just because they’re a different gender than you.

[bookcub]

I will always advocate for every queer person's right to be a fully autonomous sexual being-and that always must and always will include asexuals. Recognizing the significance of queer sex should not mean that every queer person should be mandated to meet an arbitrary sexual prerequisite in order for their queerness to be affirmed. Centering queerness around sex leaves very little room for queer folks for whom sex is insignificant, or for whom sex is never or rarely possible, or for queer folks who have never had sex before, or for queer folks whose only sexual experiences have been violent. It also leaves a lot of queer people, especially young ones, feeling pressured to have a certain amount or certain type of sex in order to legitimate or prove their queerness to themselves or to someone else.

-Sherronda J. Brown, Refusing compulsory sexuality: A Black Asexual Lens on Our Sex-Obsessed Culture

[aphostraphe]

pls give me 1(one) reason aces have ever been oppressed, and 1(one) example of aces being a part of lgbt history(before 2004 at least) and then maybe i’ll consider the idea that aces belong in the lgbt community lol

[bi-asexual]

Proof of the existence of asexuals in LGBT+ communities before 2000:

The Golden Orchid association (1644-1949) - a group of women in China that included lesbians, bisexuals, and “women who wanted to avoid both marriage options, and any romantic or sexual partnership” that today we would call asexual or aromantic. 

Another Golden Orchid association link (which, interestingly, describes what appears to be a poly relationship). 

Personal experience of a queer-identifying person noting that aces were part of the bi community in the 80s and 90s.

A book published in 1999 supports the previous link of someone’s personal experience, and notes that asexuals could be considered part of Kinsey’s “Group 3″ (the bisexuals) because they were “about equally homosexual and heterosexual” and “have no strong preferences for one or the other” just like bisexuals. 

Another book that supports the personal experience source by noting that asexuals were considered part of the bisexual “Group 3″, which was published in 1999.

Another post of someone’s personal experiences of asexuals being part of the LGBT+ community in the 90s. 

A source from 1999 noting that, while some female-female relationships in the early to mid-twentieth century were obviously lesbian relationships, not all of them were, but that it would be a mistake to label them all “friendships”. It specifically notes that asexual partnered relationships also existed. 

This book describes a series of interviews done in 1990 by Catherine Whitney who interviewed heterosexual women married to gay men, and found that they were often asexual. It also describes how, in 1990, Ann Landers (a very popular advice columnist) asked her readers if married couples could enjoy a full life without sex and was flooded with 35,000 responses from people of all ages who had little or no sex and didn’t miss it. It also describes how “Boston marriage” was originally coined with a not-necessarily-always-accurate implication that such a relationship between women was nonsexual, but that later on the assumption was reversed to imply women in a sexual lesbian relationship, and how that caused some women involved in such relationships to hide the asexual nature of their relationships for fear of being called frauds by the larger lesbian community.

This 1997 book that states “To be a Kinsey 3 (bisexual) is to be equally attracted to men and women, i.e. completely bisexual…it is also to be equally unattracted to men and women, i.e. completely asexual. Bisexuality is never about two, only about one – asexual, or self-fulfilling – or three – continuously and equally attracted to both men and women”.

Proof of asexuality being considered as a concrete, distinct orientation before 2000:

One of the first online posts about asexuality in its current use, was made in 1997. 

A study on anorexia and bulemia in gay and bisexual men done in 1999 found that 58% of anorexia patients were asexual. 

The 1997 Australasian Gay & Lesbian Law Journal mentions asexual as a “relevant sexual identity”.

A 1983 issue of the Journal of Sex Research studied the Mental Health Implications of Sexual Orientation among heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual people. 

The article “Asexuality as Orientation: Some Historical Perspectives” describes different historical studies on asexuality, including a study from Johnson in 1977 where the word asexual was used to describe women “regardless of physical or emotional condition, actual sexual history, and marital status or ideological orientation, [who] seem to prefer not to engage in sexual activity”. It also describes a 1980 study by Storms who included asexual as one of four orientation categories when mapping out sexual orientation. It also describes a 1983 study by Nurius that found out of 685 participants, 5% of males and 10% of females were asexual. It also describes a 1990 study by Berkley et al. that included questions “related to homosexuality, heterosexuality, and asexuality” and included four items (out of 45) that were specific to asexuality. 

This book published in 1922 contains a lot of what I personally would describe as narcissism and pseudo-science, but acknowledges asexuality nonetheless: “In addition to the ordinary distinctive males and females, we have asexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and old women of both sexes.”

This book from 1996 that notes “A transsexual may have a heterosexual orientation, a homosexual orientation, a bisexual orientation – or an asexual orientation” and clarifies that “a very small number – are asexual or bisexual.”

This book mentions a study by Malyon in 1981 that noted the options available to gay and lesbian teenagers choosing whether, or how, to come out by “[describing] three possible modes of adaptation in adolescence: repression of sexual desire, suppression of homosexual impulses in favor of heterosexual or asexual orientation, or a homosexual disclosure.”

Kinds of oppression that asexuals face:

Eunjung Kim wrote a chapter titled “How Much Sex Is Healthy? The Pleasures of Asexuality” that describes how “the absence of sexual desires, feelings, and activities is seen as abnormal and reflective of poor health” in Western contemporary culture “because of the explicit connection between sexual activeness and healthiness” and argues that “medical explanations of asexuality as an abnormality that has to be corrected constitute a large part of the stigmatization and marginalization experienced by asexual people.” It also discusses the ways in which some groups, specifically Asian American males, that are desexualized can erase the space for asexual Asian American men to simply exist.

Asexuals also face sexual harassment, rape threats, corrective sexual assault, and corrective rape (which, no, is not a lesbian-only term according to actual South Africans) specifically because they are asexual. 

There was a recent study by the AAU to identify sexual assault on college campuses, and broke down the responders to their survey by sexual orientation, including asexual. The results clearly show that asexuals are not immune to unwanted sexual contact, stalking, intimate partner violence, or sexual harassment.

A chapter of “Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives” that notes the specific way that asexual people are talked to/about: “Because asexual difference cannot be iterated in the linguistic field where sex and a sexed position dominate the discourse of sexuality and desire, the asexual subject is linguistically and visually dismantled and reconstructed in the position of a fetish object. This fetishistic conversion happens because the asexual person is made into an image, or spectacle, for consumption.” and “The difference between the unassailable asexual (someone who lacks all of the traits commonly blamed for asexuality such as past history of abuse, disability, etc.) and the spectacular asexual is that while the unassailable asexual allegedly makes asexuality digestible for a skeptical public and presents an accessible image, the spectacular asexual is always consumed as a fetish object, regardless of mental health, ability, and gender.”

The study “Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination of asexuals” is exactly what it sounds like. The article’s abstract states: “In two studies (university student and community samples) we examined the extent to which those not desiring sexual activity are viewed negatively by heterosexuals. We provide the first empirical evidence of intergroup bias against asexuals (the so-called “Group X”), a social target evaluated more negatively, viewed as less human, and less valued as contact partners, relative to heterosexuals and other sexual minorities. Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals). Potential confounds (e.g., bias against singles or unfamiliar groups) were ruled out as explanations.”

The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality describes many issues that asexuals face, including: how asexuality is seen as “invisible” and lends to people thinking it does not exist, how asexuality is actively erased as “unimportant” or not its own identity, the explicitly and implicitly negative messages associated with a lack of sexual attraction, the fear asexuals face when they believe there is something physically or psychologically wrong with them for being asexual, the belief asexuals face about how they must be deeply flawed since they do not conform to other sexual identities, how asexuals face cultural ideologies that sexuality is biologically based and ubiquitous (that all humans possess sexual desire) and that don’t acknowledge asexuality, that to describe oneself as asexual is a statement of moral superiority or purity or failure to find a suitable partner, that asexuality is an immature state they will “grow out of”, that asexuality is a description of action or a preference, that asexuality is unnatural or unhealthy or has to be a symptom of something else, etc.

Asexuality has been shown in the media in a negative light for decades, reflecting the idea that (for various reasons steeped in classism and racism) any woman who wasn’t willing to marry and procreate was a threat to the status quo, as seen in this 1955 book that notes: “Women who did not marry incurred political and social scorn for another reason. The influx of eastern and southern European immigrants in the United States pushed the question into eugenic terms–the wrong people were reproducing. Educated women came primarily from white middle- and upper-class stock, the most desired element by dominant social norms. When these women refused to marry and reproduce, they forced a new concern into the public discourse. it is not a coincidence that the stereotypical asexual unmarried older woman emerged at this time as a source of popular humor.”

Some people in some religions are very explicit about hating asexuals specifically because they are asexual, seeing asexuality as “a perversion akin to homosexuality and bestiality”. 

Other religions see asexuals as actually sinful if they choose not to have sex with their spouse.

While not every member of every religion looks down on asexuals, many people in portions of various religions choose to view asexuals negatively. 

Some people even recommend asexuals avoid being in a relationship with non-asexuals and assert that “promoting and trying to spread” asexuality, or behaving in an asexual manner, is wrong or unhealthy. 

Because of these religious beliefs about asexuality, that also opens up asexuals to discrimination in various legal ways, including (but not limited to) things like the new adoption bill in Texas. 

Asexuality was implicitly pathologized until very recently, and even now, the DSM-V states that a diagnosis of HSDD may not be given only if the patient has a preexisting knowledge of asexuality and chooses to ID that way.

TL;DR: 

Asexuals have long been considered part of the bisexual community. When people used to talk about bisexuals, it included asexuals because asexuals were the bisexuals too. Bisexual history is asexual history.

Asexuals have also long been considered as a stand-alone orientation that was part of larger non-straight communities and could be studied in comparison to other sexual orientations. 

Asexuals face many of the same issues that other marginalized orientations face as well as issues specific to their orientation. These include erasure, medicalization, misidentification, harassment, rape specifically targeted at them for being asexual, and religious intolerance, to name just a few.  

None of this is exhaustive. There are more sources to be found and studied. 

[livebloggingmydescentintomadness]

please reblog this amazing post!!

[giggling-stars]

Happy Pride Month to ALL LGBTQ/MOGAI peoples!!!

Pan lesbian flag by @bi-lesbian :>

[uncanny-tranny]

I think too often, people's definition of "good-faith [queer] identity" is "anything which doesn't make me uncomfortable" and honestly, nowhere in any sense of good-faith identity does it require your personal approval.

I've said this theme again and again, but I say it because it's important. When we ostracize people on something trivial like personal comfort rather than somebody's actions or behaviour, it will never bode well for you. The foot is in the door for the target to be thrown your way, even if you think you're safe. Queer people aren't safe in queerphobic society; therefore, we must protect and defend each other. The sooner this is recognized, the sooner we can make a safer world for us.

[nothorses]

hot take but I think the "we're only talking about people who identify as queer when we talk about the queer community" thing was and is one of the worst arguments in defense of the word.

I am talking about you when I say "the queer community", and "queer people", and "queer studies". I'm describing a thing that a large group of people have in common, and you share that thing in common. Your individual comfort with the word doesn't change the definition of it.

I'm sorry you don't like that word. You don't ever have to call yourself that, and you don't have to like it, and I won't ever call you that if you don't want me to.

What I am going to do, however, is decide what language I use based on A) how inclusive it is, and B) how well it communicates my point to the relevant audience.

"Inclusive" here is an important criteria; this refers to the number of people who should be included, that are included, ideally without some kind of weird hierarchy (like we see in "LGBT+" and variations). The technical definition is what we're talking about here- putting personal comfort aside, could the word "queer" describe you?

There will always be someone who doesn't like a particular word for themselves- even if it could apply. Lots of people don't like "LGBT+" (I don't really), even if it technically applies to them. You're not more important than they are.

You can identify one way on a personal level, and still understand that when we're discussing the larger community of people and the histories attached to it, you're included in that- even if you don't personally identify with the specific word we're using. Your story, your voice, and your presence matters.

Y'all need to learn to distinguish "broad term for an experience I share with others" from "personal identity label I use to describe my individual experience to others". ASAP.

[thickness-protection-program]

Happy pride to my aro aces, my gay aces, bi aces, straight aces, my trans aces, cis aces, grey aces, sex repulsed aces, sex neutral aces, sex positive aces, my boy aces, my girl aces, non-binary aces, young aces, old aces, closeted aces, recently self discovered aces, loud and proud aces, literally wherever you fall on the ace spectrum happy pride!!

[samiramohann]

happy pride month to asexuals and aromantics and everything in between. i want each and everyone of you to know that you are loved and cherished by the community even though there are some who try to diminish us. you are a valued, important, and valid part of the lgbtqia+ community. thank you for simply existing this pride 🏳️‍🌈🖤🤍💜🖤🤍💚

[star-anise]

So what I’ve learned from the past couple months of being really loud about being a bi woman on Tumblr is: A lot of young/new LGBT+ people on this site do not understand that some of the stuff they’re saying comes across to other LGBT+ people as offensive, aggressive, or threatening. And when they actually find out the history and context, a lot of them go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry, I never meant to say that.”

Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like… oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”

So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it. 

That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and  unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender. 

When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.

And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.

But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and…” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.

But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”

And that? That gives me hope for the future.

[star-anise]

Similarily: “Dyke/butch/femme are lesbian words, bisexual/pansexual women shouldn’t use them.”

When I speak to them, lesbians who say this seem to be under the impression that bisexuals must have our own history and culture and words that are all perfectly nice, so why can’t we just use those without poaching someone else’s?

And often, they’re really shocked when I tell them: We don’t. We can’t. I’d love to; it’s not possible.

“Lesbian” used to be a word that simply meant a woman who loved other women. And until feminism, very, very few women had the economic freedom to choose to live entirely away from men. Lesbian bars that began in the 1930s didn’t interrogate you about your history at the door; many of the women who went there seeking romantic or sexual relationships with other women were married to men at the time. When The Daughters of Bilitis formed in 1955 to work for the civil and political wellbeing of lesbians, the majority of its members were closeted, married women, and for those women, leaving their husbands and committing to lesbian partners was a risky and arduous process the organization helped them with. Women were admitted whether or not they’d at one point truly loved or desired their husbands or other men–the important thing was that they loved women and wanted to explore that desire.

Lesbian groups turned against bisexual and pansexual women as a class in the 1970s and 80s, when radical feminists began to teach that to escape the Patriarchy’s evil influence, women needed to cut themselves off from men entirely. Having relationships with men was “sleeping with the enemy” and colluding with oppression. Many lesbian radical feminists viewed, and still view, bisexuality as a fundamentally disordered condition that makes bisexuals unstable, abusive, anti-feminist, and untrustworthy.

(This despite the fact that radical feminists and political lesbians are actually a small fraction of lesbians and wlw, and lesbians do tend, overall, to have positive attitudes towards bisexuals.)

That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces. And part of this is because attempts to build a bisexual/pansexual community identity have met with strong resistance from gays and lesbians, so we have far fewer books, resources, histories, icons, organizations, events, and resources than gays and lesbians do, despite numerically outnumbering them..

So every time I hear that phrase, it’s another painful reminder for me of all the experiences I’ve had being rejected by the lesbian community. But bisexual experiences don’t get talked about or signalboosted much,so a lot of young/new lesbians literally haven’t learned this aspect of LGBT+ history.

And once I’ve explained it, I’ve had a heartening number of lesbians go, “That’s not what I wanted to happen, so I’m going to stop saying that.”

[simonalkenmayer]

This is good information for people who carry on with the “queer is a slur” rhetoric and don’t comprehend the push back.

[theroguefeminist]

ive been saying for years that around 10 years ago on tumblr, it was only radfems who were pushing the queer as slur rhetoric, and everyone who was trans or bi or allies to them would push back - radfems openly admitted that the reason they disliked the term “queer” was because it lumped them in with trans people and bi women. over the years, the queer is a slur rhetoric spread in large part due to that influence, but radfems were more covert about their reasons - and now it’s a much more prevalent belief on tumblr - more so than on any queer space i’ve been in online or offline - memory online is very short-term unfortunately bc now i see a lot of ppl, some of them bi or trans themselves, who make this argument and vehemently deny this history but…yep

[ryttu3k]

Or asexuality, which has been a concept in discussions on sexuality since 1869. Initially grouped slightly to the left, as in the categories were ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, and ‘monosexual’ (which is used differently now, but then described what we would call asexuality). Later was quite happily folded in as a category of queerness by Magnus Hirschfeld and Emma Trosse in the 1890s, as an orientation that was not heterosexuality and thus part of the community.

Another good source here, also talking about aromanticism as well. Aspec people have been included in queer studies as long as queer studies have existed.

Also, just in my own experiences, the backlash against ‘queer’ is still really recent. When I was first working out my orientation at thirteen in 2000, there was absolutely zero issue with the term. I hung out on queer sites, looked for queer media, and was intrigued by queer studies. There were literally sections of bookstores in Glebe and Newtown labelled ‘Queer’. It was just… there, and so were we!

So it blows my mind when there are these fifteen-year-olds earnestly telling me - someone who’s called themself queer longer than they’ve been alive - that “que*r is a slur.” Unfortunately, I have got reactive/defensive for the same reasons OP has mentioned. I will absolutely work on biting down my initial defensiveness and trying to explain - in good faith - the history of the word, and how it’s been misappropriated and tarnished by exclusionists.

[brightlotusmoon]

[prismatic-bell]

Worth noting here is a sneaky new front I’ve seen radfems start using:

Yeah, okay, maybe older LGBTs use queer and fag and dyke…but they’re cringey, and you don’t want to be cringe, do you?

I’m not even joking. They strip the loud-and-proud aspects of our history out of all context, remove every bit of blood, sweat, and tears the queer community poured into things like anti-discrimination laws and AIDS research funding, and use those screams of rebellion to say we’re weird, and you wouldn’t want to be WEIRD.

Stop and think about that for a minute.

Yeah. They are not the arbiters of our community and they never were, and it’s important to not give them the time of day.