[I’m putting this in a separate post to not bog down the OP.]
I love you and know that you are not a dick, and I’m not trying to be unnecessarily dickish, but consider this:
I will stop having a problem with the ace discourse (especially cishet aces) at large when it stops being deeply homophobic. I will stop having a problem with it when it stops painting ace people’s relationships as somehow “more pure”, when it stops acting like all non-ace people think about nothing but sex, when it stops contributing hugely to the trend of making young lesbians feel predatory for their attraction to women, when it stops sending hateful anons and suicide baits to people who think that cishet people don’t belong in lgbt spaces even if they ~don’t want sex~, as if that makes them less cishet.
Until that day, I’m gonna have a problem with it. It’s fine and dandy to be concerned about a post that *might* be ~secretly anti-ace~, but consider if a post has absolutely no mention of asexuals, it’s probably not about asexuals, and making a public fuss about it is probably not going to go over well with the people it was for and about.
I love you too and know you are also not a dick.
I absolutely understand having a problem with the ace discourse, and all the things you mentioned. There’s a lot of ridiculous, gross shit being said on all sides. But in THAT PARTICULAR POST, I feel like my point still stands...?
(Also, for the record, I haven’t gone through either of their blogs, I’m going based on that post alone, not past history.)
Basically saying “all historical figures who never got married or had relationships were inevitably gay” IS discounting the possibility they were ace.
If you said “all historical figures who never got married were all just straight loners” or something - sure you don’t mention gay people, but can you REALLY say it’s not at all about gay people?
And I feel like that concern was brought up in a civil manner, whereas the response was anything but civil. (I can understand how one can get a knee-jerk reaction to that reply though, because we’ve probably all scene these same arguments presented in waaaay shittier ways.)
I mean, you could fix that post SO EASILY by changing “gay” to “queer”, just as an example? (It also excludes bi people, but they had the “option”, so to speak, of marrying someone of different gender, so they’d probably be a much smaller group than aces.)
Or, I mean really, would it have been SO HARD to go “no, this post wasn’t about aces” without getting that aggressive? Stuff like that only serves to fuel the queer-allo vs ace hatred, and it makes me so sad.
So I feel like the “fuss” was started by the angry OP reply, not the person asking in a fairly non-confrontational way, even if it was public. Like, you might argue it was passive-aggressive, and maybe there was better ways to handle it, but...
Idk I feel like I’m saying the same thing over now....
Also yeah, just so it’s said -- all the things you mentioned that crops up in ace discourse? Gross, short-sighted, ridiculous, destructive, and absolutely homophobic. No doubt.
Like, I don’t actually blame you for hating the ace discourse - or rather, yanno, the parts of “conversations had by ace people” that are led by those (loud) horrible aces, which has now become known as ace discourse. (Which upsets me, cause those fuckheads are giving aces a bad name.)
I do have a problem with the term “cishet aces” (you could argue that it means cis-heteroromantic, but cishet is in my experience generally used for cis+heterosexual(+heteroromantic), which aces are not), and also with boiling asexuality down to “not wanting to have sex”. Like, that genuinely upsets me that you say that.
(However, being an asshole to those who disagree with me on those points is not going to get us anywhere, so while I understand people being hurt/angry at people excluding those aces from queer communities, I 100% disapprove of their actions. Like, wtf people, why would you EVER send someone suicide baits???)
But I think I’m too tired to elaborate/explain why I have a problem with those things. I can link this? But for now I guess from my side, I’ll agree to disagree, or talk about it some other time.
Also idk, I think we actually mostly agree, we’re just coming at it with different baggage, making us react differently?