You are correct. I am not responding at all to the idea you were trying to express. I'm responding to the way you use ace people to express it. If you can't understand that distinction and hold yourself accountable when your bias and lack of understanding about the lived experience of a marginalized group to which you don't belong is pointed out to you, then you are right. We can not have a constructive conversation. I would suggest you step back from your argument for a moment and look at who you have made use of -- without consent -- in order to make your point.
I am ace. I appreciate your attempt here, but honestly, it doesn't sit right, the way you write about us. And it's primarily because you are writing *about* us, not for or with us. I'm trying really hard to stay grounded and constructive as I communicate this: what you appear to understand about ace, as a group, is over-simplified and dismissive. For starters, your reference to the idea that young guys might identify as ace so as to avoid dealing with being gay requires the erroneous assumption that ace people do not contend with cultural stigma and its resulting internalized shame. That is ludicrous. When i was younger, I identified as lesbian. It took me decades to realize that I am actually ace. Having experienced identifying as both, I can assure you that it is harder being ace. Not only are we marginalized by dominant culture, similarly to all other queer people, we are also marginalized under the queer umbrella. (Speaking of which, if white kids are identifying as 2 Spirit, that's not a problem caused by including 2 Spirit in "queer"; it's a problem caused by white supremacy and colonialism, and it should be addressed as such).
In short, you are writing about us (ace) as if you are examining a specimen under a microscope. If you truly want to be inclusive, I would suggest you get to know us, and trust our telling of our own experience instead of relying on an intellectual analysis of who you logically think we are. I appreciate the attempt here, but there's more you need to 8nderstand if you want to write about us without causing additional harm.
Thanks for commenting, and I understand where you're coming from. I am indeed examining a specimen under a microscope, but I hope it's clear that that specimen is orientation itself, not any person or group of people. My goal in this piece is not really to be inclusive, but rather to unsettle our notions of sexual identity. Whatever conclusions can be drawn for ace people can be drawn for gay people as well.
I think instead of saying I'm this or that kind of person, it can be much more useful to reflect on how we've learned to understand and engage with things like sex from the culture around us. And I think that understanding is especially relevant in our current political moment. That's my two cents anyway.
That's all fine, but if you express your ideas by ignoring the lived experience -- including the marginalization and invisiblization within our own community -- of ace people, and instead use harmful biases and assumptions about us to make your argument, that causes us harm and perpetuates stigma, *regardless of your intention*. It's not your ethical prerogative to use us to make your point. We are humans deserving of dignity and respect. We are not here for you to notice or ignore, analyze and judge for the sake of your pet theory about all things queer. Your chosen ideological argument, no matter how lofty and important you believe it to be, does not take precedence over our dignity and inclusion. If you can't understand and respect that, then you will continue to express your argument in a manner that refutes the very ideas you are trying to express.
I'm not sure you're responding to the ideas I'm trying to express. In any case, it looks like I touched a wound, so I don't think we'll be able to have a productive conversation here. My hope through writing this piece is that reframing our ideas about sex and identity will help us avoid misunderstandings like this in the future.
This is a very beautiful and inclusionary and thought provoking post. One thing I am curious about, you mentioned that we don’t think of sexuality as being learned, but to me it seems that seems like on of the default things people feel. When teenagers come out to their parents one of the common responses they receive is that they must have learned or been influenced to be that way. (The media or their teachers or this “woke culture” is at fault for making them think they are gay). Which may be where the idea that “I was born that way” came from? As a kind of counter response to that argument?
But then to your point maybe we also aren’t using it enough. Because couldn’t the teenager make the same argument to their parents? That they “learned” their straightness from their media and teachers and culture? Maybe people just need to get on board with the fact that so much of it is learned anyway.
Right exactly, the idea that kids pick up queerness but not straightness is based on the assumption that straight is the default (inborn, natural), and anything else is deviant (learned, corrupted). If they actually took seriously the idea that sexuality can be learned, of course their own would suddenly be under scrutiny.
Thought- (and feelng-) provoking. Thank you. I'll add that I'm 55 and my own journey of discovery around sexuality and gender is still very much ongoing.
You are correct. I am not responding at all to the idea you were trying to express. I'm responding to the way you use ace people to express it. If you can't understand that distinction and hold yourself accountable when your bias and lack of understanding about the lived experience of a marginalized group to which you don't belong is pointed out to you, then you are right. We can not have a constructive conversation. I would suggest you step back from your argument for a moment and look at who you have made use of -- without consent -- in order to make your point.
I am ace. I appreciate your attempt here, but honestly, it doesn't sit right, the way you write about us. And it's primarily because you are writing *about* us, not for or with us. I'm trying really hard to stay grounded and constructive as I communicate this: what you appear to understand about ace, as a group, is over-simplified and dismissive. For starters, your reference to the idea that young guys might identify as ace so as to avoid dealing with being gay requires the erroneous assumption that ace people do not contend with cultural stigma and its resulting internalized shame. That is ludicrous. When i was younger, I identified as lesbian. It took me decades to realize that I am actually ace. Having experienced identifying as both, I can assure you that it is harder being ace. Not only are we marginalized by dominant culture, similarly to all other queer people, we are also marginalized under the queer umbrella. (Speaking of which, if white kids are identifying as 2 Spirit, that's not a problem caused by including 2 Spirit in "queer"; it's a problem caused by white supremacy and colonialism, and it should be addressed as such).
In short, you are writing about us (ace) as if you are examining a specimen under a microscope. If you truly want to be inclusive, I would suggest you get to know us, and trust our telling of our own experience instead of relying on an intellectual analysis of who you logically think we are. I appreciate the attempt here, but there's more you need to 8nderstand if you want to write about us without causing additional harm.
Thanks for commenting, and I understand where you're coming from. I am indeed examining a specimen under a microscope, but I hope it's clear that that specimen is orientation itself, not any person or group of people. My goal in this piece is not really to be inclusive, but rather to unsettle our notions of sexual identity. Whatever conclusions can be drawn for ace people can be drawn for gay people as well.
I think instead of saying I'm this or that kind of person, it can be much more useful to reflect on how we've learned to understand and engage with things like sex from the culture around us. And I think that understanding is especially relevant in our current political moment. That's my two cents anyway.
That's all fine, but if you express your ideas by ignoring the lived experience -- including the marginalization and invisiblization within our own community -- of ace people, and instead use harmful biases and assumptions about us to make your argument, that causes us harm and perpetuates stigma, *regardless of your intention*. It's not your ethical prerogative to use us to make your point. We are humans deserving of dignity and respect. We are not here for you to notice or ignore, analyze and judge for the sake of your pet theory about all things queer. Your chosen ideological argument, no matter how lofty and important you believe it to be, does not take precedence over our dignity and inclusion. If you can't understand and respect that, then you will continue to express your argument in a manner that refutes the very ideas you are trying to express.
I'm not sure you're responding to the ideas I'm trying to express. In any case, it looks like I touched a wound, so I don't think we'll be able to have a productive conversation here. My hope through writing this piece is that reframing our ideas about sex and identity will help us avoid misunderstandings like this in the future.
This is a very beautiful and inclusionary and thought provoking post. One thing I am curious about, you mentioned that we don’t think of sexuality as being learned, but to me it seems that seems like on of the default things people feel. When teenagers come out to their parents one of the common responses they receive is that they must have learned or been influenced to be that way. (The media or their teachers or this “woke culture” is at fault for making them think they are gay). Which may be where the idea that “I was born that way” came from? As a kind of counter response to that argument?
But then to your point maybe we also aren’t using it enough. Because couldn’t the teenager make the same argument to their parents? That they “learned” their straightness from their media and teachers and culture? Maybe people just need to get on board with the fact that so much of it is learned anyway.
Right exactly, the idea that kids pick up queerness but not straightness is based on the assumption that straight is the default (inborn, natural), and anything else is deviant (learned, corrupted). If they actually took seriously the idea that sexuality can be learned, of course their own would suddenly be under scrutiny.
That makes so much sense 🤯
Thought- (and feelng-) provoking. Thank you. I'll add that I'm 55 and my own journey of discovery around sexuality and gender is still very much ongoing.
That's the beauty of it: sex and gender are not static, but grow and change along with the rest of ourselves.