![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 30th, 2019 11:12 pm(The below started as an argument0 on twitter with someone who was possibly a TERF and possibly just 14 and fed bad information. Enjoy.)
Because here's the two things about queer: It's all-inclusive, and it's non-assumptive. And both of those are _incredibly important_ to me.
We need umbrella terms. Lots of people appreciate having labels, and ways to indicate what is and isn't in-group. And there's always going to be some kinds of umbrella-terms assumed or used. Queer, gay, LGBT, QUILTBAG, GSM, MPREG1, MOGAI...mostly it's lots and lots of alphabet soup.
And the problem with (most) alphabet soup is that it almost never goes far enough. You say LBGTQQAAI...and I say that's awesome, but I've *never* seen one of those that includes NonBinary. Or hell, "pan". Way more often we just get the "big four", which is great for those who only and fully are covered by Gay Lesbian Bi and/or Trans, but weirdly...the rest of us are sorta missing out.
(No, I don't think LGBT+ is an acceptable tradeoff. Being told "oh yeah, you're in the "etc" does not validation make.)
So all-inclusive --means that any of my weird-ass friends can still see themself reflected. So that *I* can still see myself reflected. "Representation is important" says the person who damn fucking near began crying at the staff meeting in front of all their coworkers because we actually have non-binary as a category in our AP data this year.
But non-assumptive is very nearly as important to me. And here's the scenario where that comes into play...
Me and Kate Bornstein are walking down the street, hand in hand and snuggled up with each other2. We're obviously very clearly entangled! You look at me in my skirt and witchy-hat and ridiculous lipstick, and her in her scarves and necklaces, and big fabulous sunglasses. "Look at the cute lesbian couple!"
WRONG.
"Look at the cute WLW couple"
BAD.
"Look at the cute queer couple?"
Ding-ding fucking ding.
I don't know *exactly* how Kate IDs their sexuality (beyond that wikipedia affirms that she is attracted to women) but I am *definitely* bisexual3, and not a lesbian. Meanwhile, we're definitely *not* woman-loving-women because I'm non-binary4 and Kate is GNC --neither of us is a woman.
If you label people who are clearly part of The Community as "queer" you are saying "hello, I recognize that you likely belong with me and we've things in common (along the lines of being non-cis and/or non-het)". But you're not saying "you must be this kind of gay" though. You're giving those people the freedom to identify themself, when and if it comes up, without you forcing an incorrect label upon them.
If queer makes you feel iffy personally, that is A-OKAY! Don't use it! You do not have to self-identify as such!
But if you are going to steamroll my ability to welcome EVERYONE into my community without having to guess what their specific thing is (or interrogate them for information that they might not yet have --the second Q usually means Questioning!) by saying that MY IDENTITY is a slur? No. You don't get to do that.
I'm not gay as in happy. I'm queer as in fuck you. Get over it.
~Sor
MOOP!
0: I was quite polite to them, but did not "agree to disagree" that my identity is a slur that no one should have used on them.
1: This is stolen from Tumblr --Marginalized People of Romantic Erotic and Gender. I think this one's brilliant and can see NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!
2: JUDGE ME FUCKING NOT, OKAY? YOUR CRUSHES ARE JUST AS VALID!
3: And better people than I have written on the whole "bisexual does not mean straight or homo based on who you're currently smooching" thing
4: How much do I love the "nonbinary does not mean woman-lite" thing that's been going around Twitter? A _lot_ okay?
Because here's the two things about queer: It's all-inclusive, and it's non-assumptive. And both of those are _incredibly important_ to me.
We need umbrella terms. Lots of people appreciate having labels, and ways to indicate what is and isn't in-group. And there's always going to be some kinds of umbrella-terms assumed or used. Queer, gay, LGBT, QUILTBAG, GSM, MPREG1, MOGAI...mostly it's lots and lots of alphabet soup.
And the problem with (most) alphabet soup is that it almost never goes far enough. You say LBGTQQAAI...and I say that's awesome, but I've *never* seen one of those that includes NonBinary. Or hell, "pan". Way more often we just get the "big four", which is great for those who only and fully are covered by Gay Lesbian Bi and/or Trans, but weirdly...the rest of us are sorta missing out.
(No, I don't think LGBT+ is an acceptable tradeoff. Being told "oh yeah, you're in the "etc" does not validation make.)
So all-inclusive --means that any of my weird-ass friends can still see themself reflected. So that *I* can still see myself reflected. "Representation is important" says the person who damn fucking near began crying at the staff meeting in front of all their coworkers because we actually have non-binary as a category in our AP data this year.
But non-assumptive is very nearly as important to me. And here's the scenario where that comes into play...
Me and Kate Bornstein are walking down the street, hand in hand and snuggled up with each other2. We're obviously very clearly entangled! You look at me in my skirt and witchy-hat and ridiculous lipstick, and her in her scarves and necklaces, and big fabulous sunglasses. "Look at the cute lesbian couple!"
WRONG.
"Look at the cute WLW couple"
BAD.
"Look at the cute queer couple?"
Ding-ding fucking ding.
I don't know *exactly* how Kate IDs their sexuality (beyond that wikipedia affirms that she is attracted to women) but I am *definitely* bisexual3, and not a lesbian. Meanwhile, we're definitely *not* woman-loving-women because I'm non-binary4 and Kate is GNC --neither of us is a woman.
If you label people who are clearly part of The Community as "queer" you are saying "hello, I recognize that you likely belong with me and we've things in common (along the lines of being non-cis and/or non-het)". But you're not saying "you must be this kind of gay" though. You're giving those people the freedom to identify themself, when and if it comes up, without you forcing an incorrect label upon them.
If queer makes you feel iffy personally, that is A-OKAY! Don't use it! You do not have to self-identify as such!
But if you are going to steamroll my ability to welcome EVERYONE into my community without having to guess what their specific thing is (or interrogate them for information that they might not yet have --the second Q usually means Questioning!) by saying that MY IDENTITY is a slur? No. You don't get to do that.
I'm not gay as in happy. I'm queer as in fuck you. Get over it.
~Sor
MOOP!
0: I was quite polite to them, but did not "agree to disagree" that my identity is a slur that no one should have used on them.
1: This is stolen from Tumblr --Marginalized People of Romantic Erotic and Gender. I think this one's brilliant and can see NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!
2: JUDGE ME FUCKING NOT, OKAY? YOUR CRUSHES ARE JUST AS VALID!
3: And better people than I have written on the whole "bisexual does not mean straight or homo based on who you're currently smooching" thing
4: How much do I love the "nonbinary does not mean woman-lite" thing that's been going around Twitter? A _lot_ okay?