Hate from the LGBT+ Community

[LunarSeas]

16 hours ago, DeltaV said:

I think you know the circumstances I'm talking about: aromanticism is “subtle” if it comes with being heterosexual + not romance-repulsed. In this case aros might just think of themselves as normal straight people. Compared to that being homoromantic-homosexual is pretty much like a jackhammer. It's extremely difficult to deny, though in the past some managed that too!

This is often my problem, even in my own brain. I'm not "queer enough" because I'm heterosexual. 

I've had loads of friends all over the lgbtq+++ spectrum, and while most are accepting of my aro-ness, I've still heard "OMG, romantic orientation, this is silly" and it's disheartening. 

Just this past Friday was my first time saying that i was aromantic out loud. It went better than expected, but I also expected to maybe never say it, because of the rejection of aros from queer spaces, not to mention the rest of the world just plain not knowing we exist. 

 

I feel very much between a rock and a hard place with my mixed orientation.

[JoanieDark]

Seeing as I ain't a cishet I've never had any of the issues about being in the q***r community, lol. Sorry others have to deal with the invasion discourse, though.

 

[Confirmed Bachelor]

The LGB community is centered around pairing up (or more) into relationships just like the straight community is. 

[Josie]

I understand that LGBT people don't think we should be included because we don't experience the same type of discrimination they do. For example, I don't think anyone has ever been murdered or abused for being aromantic (please correct me if I'm wrong though). But just because we aren't necessarily exposed to the same hate it doesn't mean that we don't exist or that we don't have the same rights as them. I wrote a tumblr post about this after I had read a post that aro/ace people shouldn't be included in the LGBT community. I can link it here if anyone would be interested in reading it. 

 

http://the-t-is-for-trash.tumblr.com/post/157624737687/okay-so-its-time-for-a-rant-about-aromanticism

[Mark]

4 hours ago, Josie said:

I understand that LGBT people don't think we should be included because we don't experience the same type of discrimination they do. For example, I don't think anyone has ever been murdered or abused for being aromantic (please correct me if I'm wrong though).

It's not unknown for aros to encounter homophobia. Being disinterested in or repulsed by heteroromantic relationships along with seeking heteroplatonic relationships can be seen as "gay behaviour". A lot of discrimination is rather more subtle than being physically assaulted. e.g. so called "glass ceilings" within workplaces.

 

4 hours ago, Josie said:

But just because we aren't necessarily exposed to the same hate it doesn't mean that we don't exist or that we don't have the same rights as them. I wrote a tumblr post about this after I had read a post that aro/ace people shouldn't be included in the LGBT community. I can link it here if anyone would be interested in reading it.

Unfortunately the LGBT has it's fair share of idiots.

 

4 hours ago, Josie said:

http://the-t-is-for-trash.tumblr.com/post/157624737687/okay-so-its-time-for-a-rant-about-aromanticism

I'm not sure about the colour scheme of light pink on white. Found it fairly hard to read.

[DeltaAro]

19 hours ago, Josie said:

understand that LGBT people don't think we should be included because we don't experience the same type of discrimination they do. For example, I don't think anyone has ever been murdered or abused for being aromantic (please correct me if I'm wrong though).

Killed for the identity aro? I don't think this ever happened. But if we consider the whole world, I'm sure that not conforming to amatonormative standards (action) had people got killed (they don't have to be aros, though. Also aromanticism is pretty much unknown anyway and not easily inferable from behavior). Such hell-hole cultures do exist.

19 hours ago, Josie said:

But just because we aren't necessarily exposed to the same hate it doesn't mean that we don't exist or that we don't have the same rights as them. I wrote a tumblr post about this after I had read a post that aro/ace people shouldn't be included in the LGBT community. I can link it here if anyone would be interested in reading it. 

I think that this results from a problem of privilege / intersectionality theory. It divides the groups into

1. oppressors (privileged, “normal”) 
2. oppressed

(and this categorization is binary, there is no nuance here), and so we're accused of making up a minority (like Ophelia Benson suspects) to show we're exactly as discriminated as one of the “classic” minorities.

 

When it's okay to count yourself as “belonging to bucket 2.” is not clear, so as a theory that helps you to avoid falling into errors it has not much value. Like the “Northern-Hemisphere-privilege”-thing started as a joke but now seems to be taken seriously. So of course, if people suspect that somehow this falls into the same bucket as “Santa Claus is always shown as dressed for winter!”, they're not going to react well.

[Mark]

33 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

I think that this results from a problem of privilege / intersectionality theory. It divides the groups into

1. oppressors (privileged, “normal”) 
2. oppressed

(and this categorization is binary, there is no nuance here), and so we're accused of making up a minority (like Ophelia Benson suspects) to show we're exactly as discriminated as one of the “classic” minorities.

There are several problems with this idea.
Most obvious is that social privilege is intersectional.
When you look at a population of any size you will invariably find "patricians" who you'd expect to be plebeian and "plebeians" who you'd expect to be patrician.
What typically happens is that the vast majority of people are indifferent to the issue.
A much smaller group, made up of both patricians and plebeians seek to maintain the status quo (and thwart any attempts to change it).
Another small group will seek to change it. (Though it's far from unknown for some plebeians to be more interested in becoming patricians than eliminating the hierarchy.)
 

49 minutes ago, DeltaV said:

Like the “Northern-Hemisphere-privilege”-thing started as a joke but now seems to be taken seriously. So of course, if people suspect that somehow this falls into the same bucket as “Santa Claus is always shown as dressed for winter!”, they're not going to react well.

This North/South divide idea goes back at least as far as the Brandt Report. Though the so called Brandt Line does not in any way follow the Equator and might well not be drawn the same way now.

[DeltaAro]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

Most obvious is that social privilege is intersectional.

Is it really always? If you combine male + homosexual you aren't necessarily better off than female + homosexual. At least regarding certain categories. For example, it's simply the case that there are a lot more serious hate crimes against gay men than lesbian women.

1 hour ago, Mark said:

This North/South divide idea goes back at least as far as the Brandt Report. Though the so called Brandt Line does not in any way follow the Equator and might well not be drawn the same way now.

Yes, but I was really talking about the equator here. In general, on the scale from a mere nuisance (like an Australian being asked really stupid questions as “So, does water going down a plughole swirl counter-clockwise down there?”) to more serious/hostile stuff (like an aro being asked “Are you a sociopath?”) to the just horrible-horrible (like being murdered for being gay), where exactly do we draw the line?