Asexuality and Queerness

[Shades]

I am a gay female university student, asked by an asexual friend of mine if she could come into the queer lounge (which is open only to queer students, not queer-friendly). I initially said yes I think so, because as I understand it asexuality comes under the queer banner as well, 'queer' being anything that is not strictly hetero-normative. Then she said that she technically identified as straight, but asexual.

Now I know that AVEN says that while asexuality is a "part of the queer movement but individual asexuals may not share queer experience or identify as such", if she still identifies as being straight while still being asexual, does the fact of her asexuality 'qualify' her as such to go into the queer lounge, because it is an aspect of queerness??? Or does her identification as straight then remove the queer connotations... ? Or is it simply up to her to identify as queer or not-queer?

If I sound a little confused it's because I am, I'm sorry if I've inadvertently offended anyone, I haven't really had the time to research more extensively, I've been hurrying because I feel for her and wanted to give her an answer as soon as I could, as she says she feels like she doesn't really 'fit' anywhere on campus.

I considered putting this on a queer forum, but thought I would ask the asexual community for your opinions first, then if directed to, I will post this somewhere queer.

[Heimdall]

Well, fist of all, hello and welcome, shades.

It seems to me that your friend could anyway benefit of being accepted in your lounge, and since she asked for it...

Also, I don't suppose she has been aggressive about being straight, so I don't think that would be a problem; and being asexual is queer, I think, since this is not falling under the common way of pairing in society.

And I don't think this is much cumulative, so a straight asexual would not be queerer than a gay or bi one.

Just let her have a chance to see if you can help her feel better, you'll always have the possibility to discuss that after a few times.

I don't know if this is good enough, well, if not I hope someone else can then give you better informations.

Have a nice day !

[Cate Perfect]

Hmmmm

The world will still perceive her as being straight and therefore not a threat. Whereas, even though I'm gay and asexual the world will still perceive me as being lesbian and therefore worthy of being bashed.

I suppose the question is how out is she as being a? Is she ready to explain to people why a straight girl is hanging around in the queer lounge? Is she prepared to be mistaken for a lesbian--because that's probably going to be the conclusion people will come to if she's not out as a.

Cate

[allyva]

I do wonder how sexual the lounge is.

[Shades]

Thanks to all three of you, very valid points you've all made - thanks for that! I tend to think similarly to Heimdall on this one, personally, but also I had wondered about the sexual nature of the conversation in the lounge. As we are sort of all bound together by a definite presence of a sexuality that is not quite hetero, the focus of a number of conversations tends to be well... sex. I figured all I could do regarding this was warn her of this prior and if she chose to still enter the lounge she could make a more informed decision at any later date as to her comfortability.

Thanks very much to Cate Perfect for raising a consideration that hadn't even occurred to me - I'll think on that and mention it to my friend, before deciding how we could perhaps approach it.

Please keep the opinions coming, this is really helping me!!

[Eta Carinae]

Is there someone in charge of the lounge? Could you ask them? If there's no one in charge, do you think the majority of the people there will react badly to her coming in?

(Frankly, I think "queer" would better be defined as a cultural thing -- it's not the accepted definition, but it seems more helpful to me. Also, I think a "non-straights only" space is a bad idea. If it were more focused, that would be one thing (much like women only places can be useful, transsexual only or lesbian only could be), but "non-straight" is such a mishmash of things that it seems more like the discrimination queer groups are usually trying to fight.)

[Shades]

There is someone in charge of the space... the Queer Officer is my gf in fact - she's under a lot of stress at the moment with other stuff - I mentioned it to her and she asked me to do some research for us both, she was no more clear on the issue than I was.

We have the lounge as a safe space for all queers to feel comfortable surrounded by their own, we have different hours each week devoted to the subcats like transgender, bisexual, lesbian etc but most of the time it's somewhere to get away from straight eyes and just be ourselves. Does that explain the reasoning behind it being queer only?

[Eta Carinae]

Dammit. I wrote a post up and lost it. Let's try this again.

I get your reasoning. I just think it's bad reasoning.

First of all, not all straight people are bigots; they're not all out to get you, or even look at you funny. Excluding them entirely seems based on this belief, or on the idea that the mere presence of a straight person is going to make someone uncomfortable.

Secondly, "queer" is a mishmash. Oh, it's certainly not the most heterogeneous mishmash out there, but a group of queer people isn't like a group of lesbians or FTM transsexuals. All the transsexuals deal with issues concerning their gender. All the lesbians deal with issues concerning who they want to sleep with. Yes, there's coming out experiences, and yes, gender and sexual orientation are in the same general area, but it's really not the same thing. Throw in transitioning issues for transsexuals, and it's even less similar.

To set aside a space for such a mishmash, then, doesn't seem so much like grouping together people with highly similar issues and experiences as it does excluding straight people based (at least partly) on the idea that, on some level, they're unpleasant.

My objections aside, I don't know how good of an answer you'll get on Internet message boards. Wait, scratch that-- I don't know how much of a consensus you'll get from message boards; you're likely to get a few good replies, even if they might not agree with one another. People can't even agree about whether or not asexuality exists; finding a consensus on whether or not it's automatically queer is even less likely. I'd suggest considering how the other people who use the lounge would react, and using that as your guide.

[Shades]

I get what you're saying... I guess all I can say is that I like having the option of being in a solely queer environment, it's the only space I can do that in. When I want to hang out with my nonqueer friends AND my queer friends, or just my nonqueer ones, I have the whole rest of the world to do that in. I like having the option.

And as far as the queers being a mishmash, I think it's a good thing, not a bad thing at all. We all educate each other about our individual situations, and can pool ideas.

This is somewhat off topic though, so maybe we should just agree to disagree? :)

[borrowedTime]

I'd suggest considering how the other people who use the lounge would react, and using that as your guide.

I agree.

Assuming your asexual friend is happy to openly identify as queer, then whether she'll be accepted depends on whether the other people will agree that she is queer.

If many of them use the lounge primarily because it is queer-only, then some may be uncomfortable, if asexuality does not fit their understanding of what it is to be queer.

On the other hand if most are not overly-concerned about the queer-only aspect, or if their definitions of queer are wide, there should not be a problem.

I see what you're saying about a solely queer environment, but it wouldn't be for me.

As someone who identifies as queer / genderqueer, I have to say, that, personally, I would be reluctant to enter an environment which selected people based on identity (i.e. queer-only). I would feel much more comfortable being somewhere where everyone shared the same values (i.e. queer-friendly).

But each to their own - if the selection criteria make you more comfortable, fine.

[Shivers]

No way to say for certain, but how I would suggest is, let her in, and then see if anyone objects.

[Amcan]

Yep I have to agree with what others have said baout using the people who use it as a guide.

Asexuality is tricky as it encompasses striaght, bi, gay, transgender people anyway. It's more seperate from sexual sexuality than a specific orientation.

Yes it could be classed as 'queer' but you do run into all kinds of problems with people not believing there is such a thing, the variety of asexuals etc.

See what the people in the lounge say, it's them who will have the opinions that count. If they want/don't want your friend there it is up to them to say.

[Chozo]

Perhaps the question is why would you want to keep someone out.

If she doesn't fall into any of the categories of people you would want to exclude then let her in.

[LC]

I'm certainly no expert on the definition of "queerness", but it seems strange to me that a "straight" asexual would not qualify.

It's true that not all asexuals identify themselves as "queer". (I'm guessing there are also gay/lesbian/bisexual people who wouldn't use that word to describe themselves either). It's a bit of a loaded word and many people simply don't like it. Nonetheless, if you're looking for an objective definition of who is "queer" (meaning not hetero-normative) then I would have to say that asexuals (whether straight, gay, bi, or none of the above) qualify.

In any case, if it were me I'd want to err on the side of inclusion. Otherwise, you're basically telling your friend that not only is she not "straight" enough to fit in with most heterosexuals, but she's not "queer" enough to go to the queer lounge. Where does that leave her? If she wants to go, IMO let her go! If she doesn't like it there or decides it's not what she was hoping for, then that's her decision.

Anyway, just my opinion...

[Amcan]

The problem of the word queer as regards to it's definition and asexuality:

From Dictionary.com

queer

adj. queer·er, queer·est

Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.

Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.

Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.

Slang. Fake; counterfeit.

Feeling slightly ill; queasy.

Offensive Slang. Homosexual.

Usage Problem. Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

Usage Note: A reclaimed word is a word that was formerly used solely as a slur but that has been semantically overturned by members of the maligned group, who use it as a term of defiant pride. Queer is an example of a word undergoing this process. For decades queer was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of people to whom this term might apply still hold queer to be a hateful insult, and its use by heterosexuals is often considered offensive. Similarly, other reclaimed words are usually offensive to the in-group when used by outsiders, so extreme caution must be taken concerning their use when one is not a member of the group.

This is the problem in a nutshell (quite a large shell but...)

Doesn't just apply to this case but the problem of associating asexuality with the word queer.

Yes asexuality is what might be termed as deviating from the norm BUT is a word we can use considering its past and other connetations?

Words are so complicated.

[-V-]

Words are simple, we just fouled this one up by making it mean 20 things.

[Shivers]

Words are overrated. Every person that I've talked to who speaks multiple languages has agreed with me that words are tools which can be used, but they're not very durable.

[Hexpiral]

In some way, even monolinguals speak several languages. 2000 English is not the same as 2005 English. I often use words from different langages in conversation, and even more in writing. As an example, I talked about how spanish has two very different words for pride in another thread.

That didn't make a lot of sense. I'm exhausted, and going to get some sleep.

[Shivers]

No, it made perfect sense, and is precisely my point. Words change so much, so easily.

[Wild Seven]

I bit of pity clubs that are "some orientation-only". I would rather go to the community of people that has common moral values- ie fighting intolerance, injustice and so on. Otherwise it reminds about partying and about the old thinking that is like "you're other- just go away". And my apologies, but EVERYBODY can find a reason to exclude someone just because he/she is different, fundamentally there is NOONE exactly the same like us. (okay, let's let the twins go... there is level of similarity stronger than anywhere else :) I'm just trying to say that I don't copy why some people still live in a style of thinking that finds differences- it's been here for so long, why not to find what we have in common instead of it???

There is certain thing about people having right to decide whether they want someone in group that they built, ok, I take it. I just don't think it is one of things that can move the thinking of all of us forward, it isn't challenge, it is just staying in the old comfortable area, not a pioneering work towards new standarts..................

Just wondering,

Nat