Had a delicious dinner and stimulating discussion with armchairshrink and armchairpink about whether it's worth adding an "A" for Asexual to the LGBT string or, alternatively, whether asexuality is something which can be said to be "queer." I took the position that inclusion of the "A" is just fine, and even desirable, for the reason that what asexuals and many other LGBT and queer people share is a common desire for dignity and respect while openly living lives that diverge from the norm of the heteronormative, gender-normative nuclear family (when I read it now, this definition excludes self-loathing gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people - is that important to this discussion, I don't know).

The reasons that shrink and pink gave for excluding the "A" or excluding asexuality from "queer" are, from my recollection:
1) That it is an appropriation of queer struggles
2) That asexuals are not oppressed at all, or are not oppressed to the same degree as LGBT people
3) That asexuality is not a form of sexuality at all, but rather a non-sexuality
4) That I'd failed to articulate a principle that would recognize asexuality as akin to being LGBTQ but not recognize pedophilia as being so
5) That asexuals tend to be sex-negative
6) That "letting asexuals in" would dilute or divert valuable attention and resources away from more important goals
7) Other good reasons that I'm sure I'm not remembering now.

Since this is the totally unfair medium of my LJ, I'll reply to these points in my OP and let shrink and pink respond in comments if they want to.

1) It seems to me that this is question-begging. You can only "appropriate" queer struggle if you are assumed not to be queer. However, I think it does address a concern that asexuals draw a false equivalence between the struggles of asexuals and the struggles of, for example, gay men, or the struggles of transgender or genderqueer folks. My response to this is that I don't think that it means we should just leave them out of our collective efforts to bring respect and equality to all individuals, whatever their gender identities, sexual partners, sexual acts or lack thereof (obvs. excluding acts that are in themselves harmful). There are plenty of individuals and communities within the larger LGBT or queer umbrella, and sometimes we draw false equivalences between our experiences. The solution is not to splinter with each person or community only talking about their own struggle. For me this is the difference between a political community and a safe space. Each facilitates a different kind of conversation and activism. Both are necessary.

2) I think this is a variant of the "appropriation" concern and suffers from the same flaws (question-begging and lack of distinction between safe space and political community), with the added danger of degenerating into comparing oppressions (e.g., were you ever beat up vs. do you never see positive representations of people like you in the media?)

3) I have to admit I don't totally get this, since being trans also is not a "sexuality" insofar as it is not about partner-choice but is about gender identity, and to my mind it's ridiculous to suggest that queer movements should exclude those who are trans. Also it seems to me that the decision to choose "none" is an important aspect of choosing sexual or romantic partners. Just as I think the concerns of atheists must be included in movements for religious freedom or religious tolerance, so too must the concerns of asexuals be at least acknowledged in a queer movement.

4) I think a simple principle would be - pedophilia manifested in sexual behavior towards children necessarily causes harm and so is different from asexuality and other queer sexualities and gender identities. Also I have other thoughts about this country's hysteria and hypocrisy about pedophilia that I shall save for another time.

5) Some asexuals are sex-negative, some other LGBT people are also sex-negative. They are not off the island.

6) This one is again, a little question-begging (if asexuals are queer, aren't their community goals a part of the queer community's goals too?) But anyway, I think that a more diverse queer community actually creates more energy, more organizing efforts, not less. Maybe this is pollyanna-ish of me. I don't think, for example, that efforts to ensure there are gender-neutral bathrooms in all public buildings; or that same-sex couples' relationships are honored; or that gender-variant children are not beaten up in schools; or that out lesbians don't have their children taken away from them detract from each other. I don't see why efforts to ensure that asexual people are not mocked or socially isolated detract from these efforts either.

7) Apologies!

Tags: big tent is big, queer, wank