Maybe queerness could be seen as a scale

[Holmbo]

I just had this idea about seeing queerness as a scale rather than saying "that's queer, that's straight"

In that case someone who's aro heterosexual cis might be closer to the straight end of the scale. While someone who's for example polyamorous panromantic asexual non binary could be considered to be farther out on the scale. 

I was thinking that could help fascilitate discussions about priveledge without excluding anyone cause they're not "queer enough".

[nonmerci]

I understand where you're coming from but I don't think it's a good idea.

First it would be used by exclusionist to say that people are not queer enough. 

Also, I think it would lead to very complicated questions, to know who is more queer than the other. Like, I saw people say that aro heterosexual are more priviledged  (or even not queer at all) because of heteronormativity. But I consider myself more priviledged than an aro hetero because I think that I have it easier than people who has a split attraction. I'm pretty sure some people would argue that with me and really, I don't want to see that  kind of debate...

Also where would fit people who don't label their sexual or romantic orientation?

 

So no, sorry but I think it would create problems instead of solving them.

EDIT : in fact the main reason I think why it can't be seen as a scale, is because there are so many variables. The spectrum works for a-spec people because it is about one thing, and because we don't use it as a scale (no one wil wonder who is more aro between an demiro or a lithro, or I'm thinkful that I never encounter this debate). But with qeerness, there is sexuality, romanticism, gender... a lot of factors here, with an infinity of combinaisons, with all specific problems. A scale is too simple to embrace such a diversity.

Edited October 24, 2020 by nonmerci

[Mark]

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I just had this idea about seeing queerness as a scale rather than saying "that's queer, that's straight"

In general attempting to apply linear scales to multi-dimensional qualities is both complex and of little use.
 

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

In that case someone who's aro heterosexual cis might be closer to the straight end of the scale.

You'd also need to consider the likes of married monogamous cis heteroromantic homosexuals.

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

 While someone who's for example polyamorous panromantic asexual non binary could be considered to be farther out on the scale.

An additional complication here is that monogamy repulsion appears to be very rare with alloromantics but fairly common with aromantics. Whilst polyamory spaces tend to assume monogamy favourable.
 

3 hours ago, Holmbo said:

I was thinking that could help fascilitate discussions about priveledge without excluding anyone cause they're not "queer enough".

Privilege is intersectional, attempting to apply a one dimension scale easily leading to false equivalences.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Mark

[Mark]

26 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

Also, I think it would lead to very complicated questions, to know who is more queer than the other. Like, I saw people say that aro heterosexual are more priviledged  (or even not queer at all) because of heteronormativity. But I consider myself more priviledged than an aro hetero because I think that I have it easier than people who has a split attraction. I'm pretty sure some people would argue that with me and really, I don't want to see that  kind of debate...

Perioriented vs varioriented (as well as overlapping vs mutually exclusive varioriention) tends to only be seriously addressed within the ace community.
Given that periorientation is a normative assumption and that, at least, 11% of people appear to be varioriented this is an "elephant in the room" type of issue. Rarely does it get mentioned that even perioriented allo allos can experience only sexual or only romantic attraction either.

46 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

EDIT : in fact the main reason I think why it can't be seen as a scale, is because there are so many variables. The spectrum works for a-spec people because it is about one thing, and because we don't use it as a scale (no one wil wonder who is more aro between an demiro or a lithro, or I'm thinkful that I never encounter this debate). But with qeerness, there is sexuality, romanticism, gender... a lot of factors here, with an infinity of combinaisons, with all specific problems. A scale is too simple to embrace such a diversity.

It can sort of work. Where "a-spec" means either "ace-spec" or "aro-spec". Though both at once would require vectors or complex numbers.
Even then you have quoi orientations which are Not a Number

[eatingcroutons]

On top of the issues others have described, trying to treat queerness as a single-axis "scale" like this seems like it would inevitably end up with that scale being treated as a hierarchy, which is never going to end well.

[El011]

I feel like this could end up being biphobic and transphobic really quickly and this thread just feels really invalidating and judgmental of other people's experiences. Like, I'm not gay/trans lite or closer to cis/straight  because I align partially with my assigned sex and am attracted to people who are the perceived opposite gender of that. I'm all bi and all nonbinary, where I fall on those "scales" is my business unless I want to share with someone.

Can we just agree that you can identify as and reclaim queer if you're either non-cis or attracted to your same gender, or obviously both? As aces and aros, we should have a separate term, listen to marginalized people, and acknowledge the prejudice and stigma we face without denying that some of us are still more privileged. I've seen A+ and acomm proposed as community terms for us.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Finn

[Ch0c0]

Priviledge does not stop with queerness. Am I the only one feeling so unconfortable about discussing priviledge in LGBTQIA+ spaces - or any other thematic forum? We can never factor in everything and people will feel frustrated about it. I do because I think that I have been way more discriminated on other fields than about sex/gender/romance topics.

[Lokiana]

On 11/7/2020 at 6:58 AM, Finn said:

Can we just agree that you can identify as and reclaim queer if you're either non-cis or attracted to your same gender, or obviously both?

Bi people can be attracted to other genders and not their own and still be considered queer, because they're still bi. This is biphobic language.