Anyway. This… thing… tumblr meme? …of positioning ace/bi/pan folk as an allied unit was cute at first I guess, but it’s making me uncomfortable at this point.
‘Cause the theme has just more and more aggressively become this implication that The Hypocritical Gay Kids are invalidating and being bigoted toward innocent blameless ace/bi/pan folk, and, uh, while that definitely happens in specific incarnations (trust me, I’ve been there), it’s pretty clearly presented as if solely gay people (as a class) are Problematic and ace/bi/pan people (as a unified class) never engage in the same vice.
Which is false, by the way.
I’ve heard aces talk like anti-gay prejudice is mostly over and aces have it harder. I’ve seen bi/pan people get on lesbians’ case for not being into men. Our communities/demographics are not pristine.
If you’re addressing a specific case, that’s one thing, and if you’re just talking about things that have happened, that’s one thing, but if you’re adding that up to speak in metonymy as if gay people are guilty of invalidating others’ sexualities and ace/bi/pan folk totally aren’t… you’re wrong.
Hey there, my multiple-gender-loving friends. You’re all lovely people. Keep rocking on with your bad selves.
There’s just one little request I need to make of y’all. When you’re talking about your orientation, please avoid saying things like “hearts, not parts” or that, for you, attraction is “about the person, not the gender”. I am a person on the asexual spectrum, and I love people regardless of gender as well… and I’m pretty sure that’s not what you’re getting at, since the reason you identify as bi, pan, or what have you, I assume, is because you have a different experience than I do as a ???romantic gray-a.
I, too, would date or fall in love with someone because of what’s in their soul, not because of what’s in their pants — but that’s just because I hate genitalia in general. For me, it’s a perspective of hearts, not parts as well, because those kinds of “parts” don’t appeal to me in the first place.
So, while that kind of talk isn’t bad, per se, it’d be nice of you to keep in mind that it’s not a very precise way to describe the experience of feeling romantic or sexual attraction to multiple genders if it can also apply to a person of whom that is not true.
Please inform your peers of this consideration if the opportunity arises.
For the people who think labels are unnecessary, who think there are too many, who think the world would be a better place without them, who regard them as an interference or an obstacle to be done away with, or however you want to phrase it: this post is for you. This post will focus primarily on orientation labels, especially the ones I relate to, but if you can apply this same idea to something else, go for it.
In a hypothetical world where you could wish away the entire use and existence of words like gay, straight, bi, pan, and ace, here is what you would be doing.
1) making it harder to combat oppression
You don’t need a to use the word “gay” to reprimand your employee for mentioning her girlfriend. You don’t need to use the word “heterosexual” to uphold romantic relationships between men and women as a universal norm — by referring to “the bride” and “the groom” as if there’s always only one of each, or by assuming the gender of someone’s romantic partner based on their own, or by thinking that there’s something wrong with someone who isn’t interested in dating, or by any number of things. Heteronormativity doesn’t require labels to exist. Continue reading