You can phrase your argument as "gently" as you want but if you are listing "queer people" and "aro/ace" people as separate categories, we fundamentally disagree and I am uninterested in your opinion. Also I'm not sure why you think my post is good, since you seem to disagree with its basic premise.
If you think I don't face specific material and social consequences tied to my identity as an aroace person, I don't care about anything else you have to say. If you think "aromantic heterosexual person" and "asexual person in a platonic partnership" describe relationships with no queer people in them, then not only have you entirely missed the point of the post but you're actively insulting me while pretending to "build on my point."
This is exclusionist rhetoric dressed up in pretty language. So is defining queerness exclusively in relation to its historical use as a slur, by the way. Our history is an important part of what queerness means and how it evolved, but personally I think that actual queer people should have more of a say in defining it than bigots.
I don't care if you disagree with me respectfully on a post in which I made a somewhat controversial argument. Not everyone is going to agree with me about defining queerness as broadly as I did, and I'm fine with that. But suggesting that i'm co-opting the word queer and that it doesn't include aro/ace people is not a respectful disagreement, no matter how nicely you say it. You can disagree with my thoughts, but you don't get to disagree with my identity. Fuck off.













