![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gravityeyelidsvia http://ift.tt/2zY0Wjs:
jenroses:
novaya-model:
confide–nemini:
kisshugger:
i dont understand why asexuals still get mocked on this site just for publically identifying. like is it cus people assume youre attempting to derail lgbt discussions or do they think that not being sexually active is a bad way to live? i do not understand you can send mean anons if you want just help me out ?
Oh boy, I don’t even know how to begin.
Tumblr has a very toxic culture of mercilessly bullying “acceptable targets.” Asexuality has become an “acceptable target” because “cishets” are and asexuals are “basically cishets” right?!? Except, in a bigot’s mind, they are worse because they are “invading” LGBT spaces.
I think part of the the problem is that many LGBT (mostly the LG…) people on here finally have a sense of power over someone for their sexuality and they just go wild with power once they are hiding behind a computer screen.
Asexuality is viewed by many people on here as a sort-of foreign, unimportant and “fake” sexuality. This gives them an opportunity to mock innocent people (many of them young teens…) for their identity.
Asexuality is not new by any means, by the lack of asexual visibility in our culture as helps bigots argue that’s it’s new, fake, not-LGBT or whatever.
(I’m sorry if this isn’t exactly coherent, it’s very upsetting for me to discuss.)
Rundown:
A thing happened a few years ago where some national college LGBT+ group made some changes to its organization, one of which was lowering the number of seats for gay male representatives (as they had a disproportionately high number of seats, if I recall correctly) and another, separate change was adding a seat or two for asexual reps (as they had few, if none).
Some people on Tumblr took this as “cishets stealing LGBT+ resources” and it got out of hand from there.
But as the previous commenter touched on, this is nothing new. Before asexuals, it was non-binary people. Before them, it was bi and trans people (I forget which came first, as the LG vs. BT thing is a pretty long withstanding aspect of LGBT+ history).
What I’ve seen pretty commonly in these recent hate-trends is established biphobes and transphobes rebranding the rhetoric from the old fights and using the new trend to attract young, less-involved LGBT+ people to their side, which not only has an obvious impact on how those young, impressionable people see the current discourse, but also makes them more susceptible to transphobia and biphobia in the long run. So that’s something we all have to be on the lookout for.
The really frustrating thing is that the vast majority of resources for queer people are demand dependent to some degree. It is rare that we have a quota (x number of seats on a board.)
For example, at a convention I go to, their likelihood to have repeats of a given panel depend in part on how many people show up.
The LGBTQ+ mixer was really well attended this year. Of the 21 people there, ballpark 80% were nonbinary and/or bi and/or ace. We’ll probably get a bigger space next year and higher scheduling priority because there were so many butts in the seats. If the only people allowed in had been binary lesbians and gays I think there might have been two people and no panelists or moderators. If only binary, non-ace LGBT folk? Maybe 5.
There was one actual straight guy in the room. He was polite. It didn’t really affect things badly. I think he came with a partner? I’m not sure. It didn’t matter.
What I do know is that every single time someone said, “I’m nonbinary” or “I’m aromantic” or “I’m grey ace” or whatever…. someone else in the room lit up because someone like them was there and voicing their identity and being accepted. A few people who were less familiar with these things asked questions, got their questions answered, and suddenly realized that oh, yeah, that fit them too.
The space wasn’t ideal. But because we had so many butts in seats, our next space will be better.
I saw people in their sixties and seventies waking up to the idea that what they thought was them being broken was actually something that there is community for now, despite having spent years “in the queer community”. People who walked away years ago because there wasn’t really a place for them heard us talking and turned around and came back.
There is no downside to being inclusive of ace and nonbinary folk. And where policy is being made, ace and nonbinary people deserve representation.
The chances of ace, nonbinary and bisexual people trying to write gay, lesbian and transgender people out of the community is pretty much zero. I’ve seen it go the other way way too many times, however, to trust policies which weight more strongly the voices of more “acceptable” gays.
Queer is a big umbrella. There’s plenty of room.
(Your picture was not posted)
jenroses:
novaya-model:
confide–nemini:
kisshugger:
i dont understand why asexuals still get mocked on this site just for publically identifying. like is it cus people assume youre attempting to derail lgbt discussions or do they think that not being sexually active is a bad way to live? i do not understand you can send mean anons if you want just help me out ?
Oh boy, I don’t even know how to begin.
Tumblr has a very toxic culture of mercilessly bullying “acceptable targets.” Asexuality has become an “acceptable target” because “cishets” are and asexuals are “basically cishets” right?!? Except, in a bigot’s mind, they are worse because they are “invading” LGBT spaces.
I think part of the the problem is that many LGBT (mostly the LG…) people on here finally have a sense of power over someone for their sexuality and they just go wild with power once they are hiding behind a computer screen.
Asexuality is viewed by many people on here as a sort-of foreign, unimportant and “fake” sexuality. This gives them an opportunity to mock innocent people (many of them young teens…) for their identity.
Asexuality is not new by any means, by the lack of asexual visibility in our culture as helps bigots argue that’s it’s new, fake, not-LGBT or whatever.
(I’m sorry if this isn’t exactly coherent, it’s very upsetting for me to discuss.)
Rundown:
A thing happened a few years ago where some national college LGBT+ group made some changes to its organization, one of which was lowering the number of seats for gay male representatives (as they had a disproportionately high number of seats, if I recall correctly) and another, separate change was adding a seat or two for asexual reps (as they had few, if none).
Some people on Tumblr took this as “cishets stealing LGBT+ resources” and it got out of hand from there.
But as the previous commenter touched on, this is nothing new. Before asexuals, it was non-binary people. Before them, it was bi and trans people (I forget which came first, as the LG vs. BT thing is a pretty long withstanding aspect of LGBT+ history).
What I’ve seen pretty commonly in these recent hate-trends is established biphobes and transphobes rebranding the rhetoric from the old fights and using the new trend to attract young, less-involved LGBT+ people to their side, which not only has an obvious impact on how those young, impressionable people see the current discourse, but also makes them more susceptible to transphobia and biphobia in the long run. So that’s something we all have to be on the lookout for.
The really frustrating thing is that the vast majority of resources for queer people are demand dependent to some degree. It is rare that we have a quota (x number of seats on a board.)
For example, at a convention I go to, their likelihood to have repeats of a given panel depend in part on how many people show up.
The LGBTQ+ mixer was really well attended this year. Of the 21 people there, ballpark 80% were nonbinary and/or bi and/or ace. We’ll probably get a bigger space next year and higher scheduling priority because there were so many butts in the seats. If the only people allowed in had been binary lesbians and gays I think there might have been two people and no panelists or moderators. If only binary, non-ace LGBT folk? Maybe 5.
There was one actual straight guy in the room. He was polite. It didn’t really affect things badly. I think he came with a partner? I’m not sure. It didn’t matter.
What I do know is that every single time someone said, “I’m nonbinary” or “I’m aromantic” or “I’m grey ace” or whatever…. someone else in the room lit up because someone like them was there and voicing their identity and being accepted. A few people who were less familiar with these things asked questions, got their questions answered, and suddenly realized that oh, yeah, that fit them too.
The space wasn’t ideal. But because we had so many butts in seats, our next space will be better.
I saw people in their sixties and seventies waking up to the idea that what they thought was them being broken was actually something that there is community for now, despite having spent years “in the queer community”. People who walked away years ago because there wasn’t really a place for them heard us talking and turned around and came back.
There is no downside to being inclusive of ace and nonbinary folk. And where policy is being made, ace and nonbinary people deserve representation.
The chances of ace, nonbinary and bisexual people trying to write gay, lesbian and transgender people out of the community is pretty much zero. I’ve seen it go the other way way too many times, however, to trust policies which weight more strongly the voices of more “acceptable” gays.
Queer is a big umbrella. There’s plenty of room.
(Your picture was not posted)
