[tw: abstract/theoretical sexual violence talk, intracommunity conflict, inconclusive stressful junk]
That whole… thing where RZ responded to Queenie’s series — I haven’t said anything about it because it’s too dizzying for me to engage with, which is saying something, but I just wanted to comment, it still strikes me as strange that RZ would point out the ethical/credibility appeals in Queenie’s intro post as if… as if it’s bad for someone participating in a conversation about sexual violence to disclose their relationship to the subject, as if it’s manipulative for a survivor to point out they’re a survivor when they’re going to be talking about how survivors are talked about, as if her experience as a member of the RFAS team isn’t relevant to the claims she goes on to make…
Or, I mean, maybe I’m misinterpreting things, I guess. The part I mean is:
I have not seen anyone express any kind of disagreement to anything in any of Queenie’s series. There are probably a number of reasons for that, but most of them likely boil down to the construction of Queenie’s “expert” discursive authority about ace survivors of sexual violence, because of which anyone who would express any disagreements would be automatically positioned as “against ace survivors of sexual violence”. […]
 First a significant portion of that post was dedicated to her writing about her own experience of sexual violence. ( And generally, people stay away from criticising anything that event gets near in proximity– i.e., in the same post– to that kind of writing for good reason. )
Second, the first part of the series makes a big point of not harassing the bloggers she quotes– presumably that point applies to leaving her alone too.
Third, given her discursive power within the community as an Expert of ace survivors of sexual violence, anyone who disagrees with her is automatically positioned as “against ace survivors of sexual violence”. This power is something she bolsters very deliberately: there’s a section in her first instalment explicitly justifying her “expert” subject position. This entire series’ credibility is largely based on this “expert” status.
??? What is this? Should she… not have included those things? I mean what is this?