As seen in another thread - article on the aro community and the q-slur

[PhysicsOwl]

In the thread on Morallygrayro's survey about whether aros and aces should be considered queer, Blue Phoenix Ace posted a link to this article. We discussed it a bit over there, but I have some thoughts on it not related to that thread. I don't know that I'm informed/qualified to talk at length about it, but I wanted to discuss it further. 

 

I was put off a bit by the tone of the article, but I put that aside to look at the points. My main concern was the lack of separation between the "queer community"/those who can reclaim the word queer and the LGBT+ community. I was also conflicted about their paragraph on closeted aros/aces, their discussion of the separation of bi and gay aros from het aros as a community, and their dismissal of the existence of a LGBT+ community as a whole. I don't think I'm informed enough to have solid opinions on these topics, but I would like to hear your thoughts to learn more about these issues. 

[omitef]

As someone who does identify as queer (as in liking multiple genders), I think people are allowed to identify however the heck they want. I read this article by the founder of AVEN awhile ago, who advocated for the use of identity as a tool for self-exploration, not as a label to be strictly policed. 

 

To quote the article: "There exists a concept of a true Christian, a true American, or a true Yankees fan, but we strongly resisted the notion of a true asexual. Anyone who used the word 'asexual' to describe themselves was just as asexual as anyone else. This led to some seeming contradictions: how could someone who actively enjoyed having sex but used the word 'asexual'” to describe themselves be just as asexual as someone who had never desired sex in their life? But rather than resolving these contradictions by policing people’s behavior, we resolved them by complicating our own conceptions, like a scientist modifying a theory to match the data. Asexual-identified people who enjoyed sex started showing up and telling nuanced stories about the many reasons one might choose to engage in sexual activity, some of which had nothing to do with traditionally defined desire or attraction. Rather than pushing these stories to the side, our community was challenged to recognize and celebrate them."

 

So why can't we do that? Why can't we recognize and celebrate different kinds of queer? Ace and aro people, even heteromantic aces, or heterosexual aros, or heterosquishual/sensual aces/aros, experience attraction in distinctly different ways than heterosexual people. Aroaces who don't feel attraction also have a different experience with romance and sexuality than heterosexual people do. Saying that aroaces don't deserve to use the queer umbrella term is just like saying agender people don't deserve to use the trans umbrella term because they don't actually have a gender. The fact that they lack a gender makes them not-cis, which is what trans means. The fact that aroaces don't experience heteronormative romance makes them not-entirely-straight, which is what queer means. 

 

At least that's my take on it.

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

We can look queer up in the dictionary and find the following relevant definitions:

• differing in some odd way from what is usual or normal
• eccentric, unconventional
• often disparaging :  homosexual (2) sometimes offensive :  gay

If we ignore the third definition for now, I think it's safe to say that everybody on the planet is queer. Everybody has some unique talent, quality, or perspective that makes them odd or eccentric.

 

Now, let's look only at the third definition. Queer was used as an insult to homosexual people for many years. Even the dictionary mentions that. When it became such a slur, it seemed to drop out of normal everyday vocabulary, because it had become the most known way to use the word. In the 80s, people didn't use the word queer to describe somebody as strange, it was always an insult to gay people.

 

I realize that the gay community struggled for a very long time. I'm very fortunate to have seen this struggle not only start, but very nearly conclude in my lifetime. Part of that struggle was taking back these harmful words. They used queer to describe their orientation to throw it back in the faces of the insulters, to disarm the harshness of the word.

 

I respect that this is part of their culture, and if they think that the word queer is reserved for people who are homo-sexual/romantic, then so be it.

[Spud]

I've seen a lot of posts about this on (shocking) Tumblr. And people tend to get very heated on both sides. My current opinion is that cis hetero aces/aros and aro aces shouldn't throw around the term qu**r if it makes other people uncomfortable, but I think they should be included in the LGBT+ community if they want.

 

The qu**r slur is a very touchy subject for some people, so I don't think people should throw it around if they aren't trans or attracted to the same gender. And to be honest, I feel like that doesn't happen very often anyways. I have yet to see a hetero ace/aro or aro ace person call themself qu**r. It might happen, but I don't think it's particularly common. The only exception might be if someone was using q**r as an umbrella term to talk about LGBTQIAP... etc. community. Which is a completely different topic (about the use of it as an umbrella term).

 

As I said in my post on the other thread, the experiences of LGBT+ people are very different, and it's kind of stupid in my opinion to reject people from it who are seeking help/guidance. Most cis hetero aces/aros don't even want to be a part of the community, so the ones that choose to probably have a good reason and are not "intruding in their space." It just seems a little silly how people overreact to aces wanting to be included as LGBT+.

 

Of course, none of the groups included can speak over other groups, which I don't think would happen anyway. The community is already very diverse, and none of the groups can really speak for/over anyone else because they have very different experiences. Being included as LGBT+ might help with education or recognition, which I don't see as a bad thing.

[Vega]

4 hours ago, Spud said:

 My current opinion is that cis hetero aces/aros and aro aces shouldn't throw around the term qu**r if it makes other people uncomfortable, but I think they should be included in the LGBT+ community if they want.

That's the way I see it as well. So many people are around who have been hurt by that word that I don't think it's fair that we suddenly start calling ourselves by that. Even if, among younger generations at least, it has become used as an umbrella term. I generally agree with not policing terms, but given the history of this term I also think a bit of moderation is much better. 

 

Also yeah, I agree. I've not really ever heard that word being used to refer to a person, it's really only in LGBTQ+ and QP relationships. 

 

Also agreed that the q- community and the LGBT+ community are not anywhere near the same thing. Basically every non-cishet person experiences some form of discriminaton or alienation in their lives, and this community can be lifesaving for so many. 

I mean, I've never met another ace/aro person and I live in the capital city. Saying "you should just go make an ace community!" is so impractical. 

 

 

[Cassiopeia]

Generally, people who call you names do not ask about your actual identity. They just do not care.

 

Its been like that since...forever?

I don't think anybody who used these words against us ever gave a ****  about our identity historically or otherwise.

They did not go "Oh, excuse me luv, do prefer not to bed/wed a fine male specimen of the human species because you identify as a lesbian, aroace or because you are, in fact a straight transman? Would you be so kind and please fill out this form, so we can dehumanize/torture/kill you for the right reasons?"...Nope. They just slapped a black triangle on them, called all of them "anti-social" and treated them like things.

 

These people do not see you as a person. They do not care who or what you really are.

 

When people bombard you with slurs, trying to educate them that in fact, you aren't x but y will not make a difference. These people do not listen, they do not want to learn especially not when they swear at you.

 

So I think, if people shout "queer" at you you do have every right to laugh in their face and say "Well, I might be. So what?".

Because that's what reclaiming a slur is. I know damn well how much it can hurt. I just decided that I am not willing to be hurt by that word, because instead of it being forced on me, I use it by choice. I refuse to see it as dirty, dehumanizing, hurtful. I use it so much, so casually, that it does not sting anymore. Its as harmless (and sometimes ridiculous) as if they would shout "girl' or "left handed" or "piano teacher" at me. (Last time I checked I'm not a piano teacher, but you know, a piano teacher isn't such a bad thing to be, I could be called lots of worse things.)

 

My personal experience is that making taboos and for example saying You Know Who instead of Voldemort, only generates fear and internalized shame. We cannot make things disappear by not talking about them. Surely, the rest of the world will not stop using those slurs in anger. But we can tame those words for ourselves, befriend them, develop a resistance.

Because its really like breaking the witch's spell in a fairy tale. If one goes "you have no power over me" and actually believes it, the curse does not hurt them. But if they would doubt it, the spell would work and ruin them.

 

Its a long process, and I have plenty of other words to befriend, and I'm going to spend plenty of time chanting them at my reflection in the mirror, til they sound familiar, normal, even kind.

If I can make those words sound kind, then it does not matter who yells dyke after me on the street or what their intention is, it will not hurt me anymore. I will just take a deep breath, and remind myself that in fact, dyke isn't a bad thing to be, so whatever.

 

So if two aroace girls in a QPR want to use the word dyke, because it helps them with the hatred they have to face, they might as well go for it, I would not bat an eye tbh. (Chances are, they will hear that word a lot anyway, they have every right to find a way to cope with it).

 

Its not some quirky millennial thing that I do because I'm bored or because I feel the urgent need to tick a box that I, in fact, do belong to some hypothetical or physical herd. Its a coping strategy I developed, because without this mental yoga my every day life was just unbearable. And if I stop doing it, I know it will be unbearable again.

 

I'm not quite there yet, but I can see that I am slowly getting there. I am stronger than I was, and I still do not want to be intimidated. Sometimes I still cannot say or have to type a * in a word that makes me feel awful. But then I ask myself, is that really such a bad word?

 

I want others to experience that empowerment, because I do know what is it like when you do not have it. And for that reason, I am willing to hear them use slurs I am not comfortable with...yet. Does that make sense?

[peridotty]

On 5/3/2016 at 1:24 AM, Spud said:

The qu**r slur is a very touchy subject for some people, so I don't think people should throw it around if they aren't trans or attracted to the same gender.

 

I second this ^^^

 

imho, the only people who should be able to reclaim a slur are the people at whom that slur has been directed (white people and non-black poc shouldn't use the n word, only gay men should use the f slur, et cetera). the q slur is specific to people who are trans or feel same-gender attraction. even if youre aro or ace, if youre cis AND het you havent had that slur used against you or the group that you identify with. cishets as a group are not oppressed in society *for being cis or het*

 

the argument primarily revolves around a question of whether or not being asexual or aromantic is inherently "q***ring". i personally believe that yes it is, in the sense that aro and ace people are a part of the lgbt community, but that being aro or ace is not enough to trump the privilege that comes with being cis and het.

 

tl;dr: aros and aces are lgbt, but dont use the q slur if youre not trans or sga

[Quinoa]

I see their point that it was once used as a slur, and not everyone who identifies as queer was affected by that. However, the term is now used as an umbrella term for the entire LGBTQ+ community. Until or unless a new umbrella term is introduced, I think the term "queer" will continue to be used. People have made a similar argument about the younger LGBTQ+ generation, which did not receive the same hate as the older LGBTQ+ generation. 

I think there is a place for this conversation. However, I disagree with the way aces and aros are targeted in this post. It's just another variety of the old "Aces/aros don't experience discrimination!!!" argument. By saying aces and aros are specifically not allowed to use the term queer (instead of that the LGBTQ+ community shouldn't be using that term in general), they are basically saying aces and aros are not allowed in the LGBTQ+ community. I understand that some aces and aros don't feel they belong in the LGBTQ+ community and some do, but I strongly believe aces and aros should have a place in the LGBTQ+ community if they want to be there. 

[peridotty]

7 hours ago, Quinoa said:

By saying aces and aros are specifically not allowed to use the term queer (instead of that the LGBTQ+ community shouldn't be using that term in general), they are basically saying aces and aros are not allowed in the LGBTQ+ community. 

 

i see what youre saying? but there's a fundamental difference between being a part of a nebulously-defined community that isn't very cohesive and reclaiming a word that has been used to degrade specific parts of that nebulously-defined community. it isn't really about not being "oppressed enough". If youre not straight or not cis, you belong in the LGBT community. if youre both cis and het (sexual or romantic) and you use the q-slur, however, you risk appropriating a volatile word that has hurt a lot of people.

 

7 hours ago, Quinoa said:

I see their point that it was once used as a slur, and not everyone who identifies as queer was affected by that. However, the term is now used as an umbrella term for the entire LGBTQ+ community. Until or unless a new umbrella term is introduced, I think the term "queer" will continue to be used. People have made a similar argument about the younger LGBTQ+ generation, which did not receive the same hate as the older LGBTQ+ generation. 

 

i would totally understand this if the q-slur had gone out of use as a slur. however, just because you might not hear it that often doesnt mean that it isnt still being used? ive had the q-slur thrown in my face before and it felt like a visceral cut. ive known people 40, 50 years old who cautioned me not to self-identify as queer because theyd had that word used against them so many times and theyd never heard it in a positive context, didnt even think it should have a positive context. i have friends who have gotten death threats from people they know and who never want to hear that word again, much less use it to describe themselves. personally, i think it is incredibly offensive that the q-slur, a literal actual slur, is being used as an umbrella term. i have no problem with people using it to identify themselves as long as it actually applies (meaning theyre either trans or sga), though i usually request people not use it around me. i do have a problem when people act like saying someone isnt allowed to use a certain word is tantamount to banning someone from a clubhouse. 

 

what im saying is its not always based on feeling? sometimes it is, but i feel that its very unfair? or probably insensitive to use a word that has never been used against you or people like you, even though other people use it sometimes. 

 

---

 

i apologize for blowing this up D: this is a topic i care deeply about and its hard for me not to get argumentative when it comes up. i dont have anything against you as a person and i probably won't post in this thread anymore unless i feel its very important because i don't want to escalate this into a big discourse that makes Bad Times for the forum 

[morallygayro]

On 5/2/2016 at 9:05 PM, PhysicsOwl said:

I was also conflicted about their paragraph on closeted aros/aces, their discussion of the separation of bi and gay aros from het aros as a community 

While I still do think of myself as part of the aro community and of course straight aros are just as aro as I am, as an aro lesbian I still feel closer to other gay and bi people (especially girls), whether they're aro or not, than I do to aroaces or straight aros. Obviously that's going to vary, but most of the other aro/ace spec LGBQ people I've talked to about this identify just as much or more with the gay or bi communities than they do with the aro or ace communities and acknowledged that yes, we are different from het aros.

On 5/3/2016 at 5:53 AM, Vega said:

Saying "you should just go make an ace community!" is so impractical. 

 

 

You'd probably know more if we were more visible. That's why we should do more to promote ace and aro visibility, so more people know that they're ace or aro and would be more likely to tell people and then we CAN form a community. I know for a fact that there were at least three aces at my school when I was in high school, and at least two aros (none of the aces at my school were aro and neither of the aros were ace). And at the other high school, there were at least three aces, two of whom were aro. That's eight people, enough to form a district meet-up group. And there probably would have been more if more people had known what aromanticism and asexuality were.

[Vega]

^ Well yes, I do agree that we need more aro and ace groups but the fact is still that those take time to form. And forming groups like that means a person has to have initiative, as well as the desire to be out to everyone about their orientation. You're lucky that you had so many aros in your school. But not everyone has that good fortune. (And even if they exist, that doesn't mean you're gonna know about it.)

I mean, me deciding to start an ace/aro community at my college would be pointless since I don't know anyone else who identifies as such. Meanwhile there is an established LGBTQ+ organization already in existence.

[Jade]

In the original thread about this, I promised a long post, so here it is:

 

I think that people who have been hurt by the q-slur have the right to reclaim it.

 

This includes a lot of aroaces and possibly even some hetaces/hetaros, and doesn't include all gay people: for example, as an aromantic lesbian, I don't see myself as someone who has the right to reclaim q***r, because it was never a slur that hurt me (gay, on the other hand, was used as a slur towards me for many years--middle school boys are great at that--so, even though it's not considered a slur by many people, i do consider myself reclaiming the word when i call myself gay). It's much more likely to hurt trans people and people in a same-gender relationship than it is to hurt aroaces or hetaces/hetaros, or even bi/pan people who aren't in a same-gender relationship (ex, a woman who is attracted to men and non-binary people, but not other women, a pansexual man in a long-term relationship with a woman), but that isn't a hard and fast rule--a hetaro in a qpr with a same-gender partner in a homophobic area might be hurt by it, or an aroace woman who suffered corrective rape because people thought they were q***r for not liking men, or even some straight people who suffered homophobic assault and discrimination due to having a closeted trans partner who is read as being the same gender as them, and I, a lesbian aro, am not hurt by it. I have other slurs that hurt me that I am trying to reclaim, but the other ones, those I leave alone, and q***r is one of the ones I leave alone.

 

This includes the simple fact that I do not have the right to tell people who have been hurt, and often hurt deeply, by the q-slur, that they don't "count". The idea of someone struggling with their sexuality, or being disowned, or surviving rape, and being denied resources or community because they're not "q***r enough", all to keep out a potential cishet predator (who could get those resources anyway through "A is for Ally") is honestly horrifying to me.

 

And honestly, I haven't seen many people fighting to reclaim it unless they have been hurt with it (or unless they want the right to reclaim it because they want to "prove" that they're part of the LGBT+ community, but that's a different issue that I address later in the post). Because Cassiopeia is right: the people who call us that word don't care what we identify as--they just see us as different and bad and not-a-person. And anyone who's been seen like that deserves to be able to reclaim whatever words that they were hurt by that they want to describe themselves and their experience. I also object to it being used as an umbrella term, because it's a slur. Individuals have the right to reclaim it. Labels and identities as a whole? Don't.

 

I haven't seen very many people who identify as straight in any way trying to get into the LGBT+ umbrella (or, as I like to call it, the Alphabet Soup Suffering Coalition); if anything, they distance themselves as much as they can out of misguided homophobia. We don't really have a good time. We get abused, oppressed, and seen as non-people because of our sexuality: that is not something that people are just itching to join unless they have had the same experience as us, who want community and understanding and acceptance, who want a place that's safe from abuse and oppression, a place where they are allowed to live, a place where they are seen as people.

There are, however, a lot of people who notice that they've had the same experiences as us, want to join, and then get upset when they realize that they haven't had the exact same experiences as everyone, assuming that this means they're getting rejected. This is absurd; you can be part of the LGBT+ community without having the right to reclaim every slur that's used to hurt LGBT+ people! LGBT+ people share some experiences, but we don't share all experiences, because we're different people! It would be absurd if every single LGBT+ person had the exact same life experiences, and saying "LGBT+ people are likely to have [x experience]" or "LGBT+ people are often targeted by the q-slur" is not excluding the people who didn't have [x experience] or who weren't targeted by the q slur, it's just... a fact. However, this is generally something that arises from fear of exclusion after a life of isolation, so I do give it some leniency.

 

Another thing to note is that, in my experience, heteronormativity enforces not one cohesive thing but two:

1. The presence of attraction to the "opposite" gender

2. Lack of attraction to other genders

Gay people are hurt by both; bi/pan/poly people are hurt by the second; and aces/aros are hurt by the first. They cause different issues, but none of them are "better" or "worse", just different. Q***r is used to target people who don't completely fulfill the requirements set by heteronormativity and cisnormativity--the actual identity of the person in question? Is usually completely irrelevant.

 

When you tell me that I'm allowed to say "q***r" and be in the LGBT+ community because I'm a lesbian but not because I'm aromantic, I don't feel accepted--I feel erased, because you're not accepting my entire identity, only the parts of it that you like. I'm used to that, because I get that a lot: the therapist who treats my depression but adamantly denies the idea that I'm schizophrenic (despite me being on high-dosage antipsychotics), the straight people who find me acceptable because I'm closeted, the inaccessible LGBT+ space, whatever. Accepting part of me and ignoring the rest is not supporting me. Being seen as half a person is really the same as not being a person at all.

 

Anyway, I'd be happy with either "aces/aros make our own community" or "the LGBT+ community accepts us". I'd prefer the second, because then I'd have a place where I could be aromantic and a lesbian instead of aromantic or a lesbian, where I don't have to ignore half of my identity in order to be accepted. It also gives aces/aros who don't know yet what they are a place to go (as questioning people have been welcomed in LGBT+ spaces for a long time, and it'd make sense to give them help in places that they're more likely to go). It might be good to have ace/aro spaces--but the fact is that we don't have enough visibility for that to happen yet outside the internet, especially in more homophobic places, or places where the concepts of asexuality/aromanticism aren't well-known (which are most of them; I'm lucky enough to live in an english-speaking and heavily liberal area, where I do know multiple aces and aros, but not everyone has that privilege) make that highly impractical unless we gain a lot of visibility and acceptance. So how are we going to gain visibility, and spread the word that "not experiencing attraction" means you might be ace or aro?

...Perhaps through a community where people who aren't sure of their sexuality are likely to go, with the knowledge that they can be accepted in said community despite not being straight, a community that we share history and struggles with?

 

But if we do end up forming separate communities, I'll probably end up sticking more with the aro/ace community--there's a reason I'm here instead of, say, on tumblr. I've been invalidated, denied my life experiences, and otherwise hurt far more by lesbians than I ever have been by aros (although straight people have hurt me far, far more than either group, for the most part). Plus, I don't feel much in common with most lesbians--most of us want a wife, and talk about love a lot, and about how cute their girlfriends are, or about how much they want a girlfriend, and they often see my QPR as being a lesbian relationship in denial (we're such gal pals, claiming that we're ~just friends~ despite doing vaguely romantic-coded things like cuddling and calling each other nicknames and wanting to live together someday! nonromantic intimacy and nonromantic partners aren't a thing!). I understand where they're coming from--they talk about loving girls because they're not allowed to safely do it elsewhere, they see my QPR as being a closeted/in denial lesbian relationship because they had similar relationships as closeted and in-denial lesbians and they genuinely want to help me, etc., so I do try to be very positive and charitable, and many of the things they say do resonate with me, as a fellow sapphic woman--and we'be been oppressed enough by society, I don't want to contribute to it, and they deserve places--but often, even though I'm a lesbian too, it feels like lesbian places and my places aren't always the same (that's something I don't feel as much about more generalized LGBT+ places that accept everyone, which are really the only places I do feel fully accepted for my entire identity). Being a lesbian doesn't "trump" or "override" my experience as an aromantic person--my experience as an aromantic person is whole on its own, not just a blank slate that gets overwritten by the attraction I do feel, just like my experience as a lesbian is whole on its own and is not overwritten by my aro identity. It should be noted I feel more in common with aroaces than I do with any alloromantics, whether they're lesbians or asexuals or... anyone, really. I have a strong kinship towards the sapphic community, as the majority of us are great, but I feel an even stronger bond to the aromantic community. 

 

As far as what I want to happen? I want us to do something similar to the neurodivergent community, or the disabled community--a large community for all of us who are have similar issues (synesthetes are neurodivergent but not oppressed, while developmentally disabled people are neurodivergent and oppressed, but both have a place in the neurodivergent community because our brains work differently from the brains of a neurotypical; those of us who have mental disabilities/illnesses have many different issues than people with physical disabilities/illnesses and have separate communities but are both welcomed in the larger disability community because we both share the same struggle with ableism), with smaller communities for each of us to talk about our specific issues, in which we recognize that there are some slurs and oppression histories we share and some we don't.

 

Anyway, I feel most of this was already said in Cassiopeia's and Vega's (very insightful) posts, but I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents anyway~

 

(sorry it's so long, hyperlexia is awful; if anyone needs a tldr i'd be willing to do my best to write one up)

 

[EDIT: one of my friends brought it to my attention that the term "sga" comes from conversion therapy; as a result, it has been removed from my post]

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

Thanks for posting this Jade. Previously I was under the false assumption that the q word was always directed at certain groups of people. It makes sense now that it's targeted at specific individuals. Not all lesbians will be called that, while some aro/ace people have. If an individual feels that they are taking the word back by calling themselves that, then I'm OK with that. But, what about individuals who call themselves q**r but were never insulted with it in the first place?

[Jade]

23 minutes ago, Blue Phoenix Ace said:

Thanks for posting this Jade. Previously I was under the false assumption that the q word was always directed at certain groups of people. It makes sense now that it's targeted at specific individuals. Not all lesbians will be called that, while some aro/ace people have. If an individual feels that they are taking the word back by calling themselves that, then I'm OK with that. But, what about individuals who call themselves q**r but were never insulted with it in the first place?

IMHO if they're in a group that's often targeted by it (LGBT+ in this case), and they're aware of its history as a slur towards people like them and stay respectful of that (not throw it around, use it as an insult, or apply it to people who don't want it applied to them), I'm okay with it.  Respect is really the key for me when it comes to reclaiming a slur. Plus, since it's very unlikely to be LGBT+ and not be targeted by some form of bigotry due to it, they would probably still be reclaiming it, just in a more general sense of reclaiming it instead of it being tied to specific instances of being insulted by it? of course I am still a smol (I'm 15) and I'm still educating myself and forming my opinions so don't take my word 100% on it!! I'm glad my post made sense to you

[morallygayro]

I think that only people who are attracted to their same gender and/or multiple genders, as well as trans and nonbinary people, should reclaim "queer". We're the only ones who it's systematically used against, and having a slur misdirected at you because someone thinks you're gay isn't the same as actually being LGBT.

 

Like how a trans man might experience misdirected misogyny, but he can't reclaim "sl*t" because he's not a woman and sl*t is a slur that's only used against women. Or how non-mentally ill autistic people might be mistaken for mentally ill due to stimming and having meltdowns, but they can't reclaim "ins*ne" or any other slurs used against mentally ill people. Or how a gender nonconforming cis man or non-transfeminine amab nonbinary person who isn't a gay/bi/pan man might be mistaken for a trans woman or gay man, but they can't reclaim "tr*nny" or "fa**ot", or how a dyadic trans person might be mistaken for intersex but they can't reclaim "h**maphrodite".

 

(I'm a mentally ill, autistic, intersex, nonbinary aro lesbian btw)

[morallygayro]

Also, @Jade, there are:

 

1. Straight guys who identify as lesbians

2. Kinky and polyamorous straight cis people who consider themselves LGBT because of their kink or polyamory

3. Straight cis people who will throw tantrums when told that being "allies" doesn't make them part of the LGBT community

4. People who think being a pedophile  makes someone non-straight

 

So, yeah. There really are people who are desperate to join us.

[Louis On Air]

Here's a whacky dumb idea: create new words which make the thing sound slightly positive.

For example:

Autastic (fantastic autistic)

Colourboy (LGBT male)

Colourgirl (LGBT female)

Notwas/Notwere (transgender because you're not who you used to be)

Intersexting (interesting intersex)

Asplurger (a splurge of Asperger's)

Graceful (Ace with grace)

Aromatic (an aro who smells nice)

Feewoo (female woman without the male and man parts!)

So instead of moping at the past, let's beat the suckers at their own gain. Instead of reclaiming, we claimed it all along and it sound fun as heck!

[Tal Shi'ar]

4 hours ago, Louis Hypo said:

Here's a whacky dumb idea: create new words which make the thing sound slightly positive.

For example:

Autastic (fantastic autistic)

Colourboy (LGBT male)

Colourgirl (LGBT female)

Notwas/Notwere (transgender because you're not who you used to be)

Intersexting (interesting intersex)

Asplurger (a splurge of Asperger's)

Graceful (Ace with grace)

Aromatic (an aro who smells nice)

Feewoo (female woman without the male and man parts!)

So instead of moping at the past, let's beat the suckers at their own gain. Instead of reclaiming, we claimed it all along and it sound fun as heck!

 

There were a few people on AVEN that refer to themselves as graceful aro's

[morallygayro]

On 6/10/2016 at 5:54 PM, Tal Shi'ar said:

 

There were a few people on AVEN that refer to themselves as graceful aro's

Jsyk that actually refers to aromantic gray-aces ?

[Saber_Wing]

I feel that the term "queer" is what you make of it. I understand that it has been used for generations as a derogatory slur, and many still see it that way. That's fine, but so is using it to identify yourself if you choose. If anything, I think it's important for the LGBT+ community to reclaim that word and make it our own. I've never attached any negativity to the word queer which is why I've never had a problem using it to define myself from time to time, but no one should be forced to claim the title if it makes them uncomfortable either. 

[timidcat]

The situation with the q slur is the same as any other slur being used as a compliment. My friends use n*gger and b*tch all the time between themselves. I informed them that I don't want them used on me and they never did. I don't think it's wrong if the situation is friendly and consensual. I mean if you think about it any word can be turned into negativity, it's the context that matters.