If it was just going to be individual embarrassments like strategicgoats shooting their mouths off, I wasn’t going to say anything more than I already have, but now a mod at a popular ace advice blog is endorsing the idea of allosexual privilege, now, in October 2015, despite the coiner having renounced it over a year ago.
anonymous message: i just want to say this where people will actually see it: people who complain about theterm “allosexual” sound exactly the same as people complaining about “cis”, “cishet”, “allistic”, etc… like???? it doesnt mean anything other than “not ____”
Kiowa: Yup. You’re right.
They’re privileged people and they don’t like having to label themselves.
Look. I understand the temptation, okay? I see the reasoning.
But don’t compare “allo” to “cis.” Especially not to declare a case of “allosexual privilege.”
The concept of “cis privilege” is appropriate because a cis woman is privileged over/can wield privilege over a trans woman. Even though both are marginalized as women, whether one is cis or trans affects access to resources and exposure to violence. Cis women can, and do, oppress trans women.
You think the cis/trans axis of oppression translates linearly to a allo/ace axis?
Is a lesbian who experiences her sexuality in a way that doesn’t make asexuality a useful reference point for her identity privileged over an ace lesbian? Do you think that experiencing sexual attraction makes any lesbian safer or less marginalized, considering her sexual attraction to women is itself something she is marginalized and targeted for?
I mean. This has been explained, numerous times, numerous ways. “Allosexual privilege” doesn’t account for the ways sexual attraction is coded & accorded legitimacy on the basis of other axes of oppression, which is what people mean when they say that the idea is racist, homophobic, and transmisogynistic.
ex. a White trans woman can wield White privilege against a Black cis man but literally? how? is an allo trans woman going to have any power over an ace cis man? It doesn’t work that way. Go do more research if you don’t understand. Try keyword “hypersexualization.”
If you want to make the “aces are oppressed” argument, fine, whatever. Heterosexuals are our oppressors then, not all-allosexual-people-as-some-monolithic-class.
A term for non-aces for convenience within ace circles (which you can also debate the validity of on other accounts) does not correlate with some societally coherent demographic unto itself, especially when you factor in concerns about policing boundaries of greyness. It’s… worrying, that we have big names ace blogs (speaking in general here) riding for “LGBT+ inclusion” & “aces are oppressed” when we’ve got this kind of widespread community disinterest — that’s what I’m calling it, not ignorance, disinterest — in the histories & material realities of the LGBT community and all the ways that various forces of oppression (ex. White supremacy) have manipulated the framing of sexuality to exploitative ends.
Just. Just. Why even pound on the door, when you don’t care what’s behind it?