Are we really part of the queer movement?

[asexual1976]

Briefly onto spousal rape. As far as the law is concerned rape is rape. It no longer matters (in the eyes of the law) whether the rape was stranger, acquaintance, friend, or domestic (married and non-married couples).

You are absolutely right that this is the case in the US and most Western European countries. However you have to remember that not everyone in this world lives in the US or Europe - in fact most people live elsewhere. And laws in many of these countries are still significantly behind on this issue.

[Sally]

I do feel saddened when people on Aven reject lesbian and gay people because that's who I have primarily been for 35 years, and my friends aren't sex-obsessed - most of us are old feminists - and a bit sad when, for example, Sally suggests that older asexuals don't have much in common with the queer movement because I'm in my late 50s and I do, but I live with the paradox. I think of queer as meaning that all human sexual and gender identity is infinitely variable.

Sorry, Wordwitch -- I didn't express myself well. When I was attempting to be sexual, and was also feminist, "queer" was regarded by people I knew as being gay/lesbian. The lesbian women I knew during the 80s and 90s happened to be all quite sexual, perhaps because during that period they could finally be out and express their orientation. I've always been hetero-romantic and even when I was sexually active I didn't want anything to do with sex, so I just automatically think "No, I'm not queer." If I had been lesbian I probably would have been more aware of the larger definition of queer -- as I am now.

[ColBrandon]

asexual1976's excellent points suggest that it is more important for us to support the feminist movement than the queer movement (although we can do both). Borgeart's paper suggested that two thirds of ace people are women, and '76 has pointed out how serious the issues facing ace women can be. I'll add an additional feminist issue--the fact that sexual women end up in unfulfilling marriages to ace men, because those men have no idea what they are. This parallels the unfortunate experiences of straight women married to closeted gay men before the LGBT movement won the right for gay men to live openly. By raising awareness of the ace orientation, we can reduce the incidence of this problem. (Regular readers of my posts will be aware of the importance this issue has for me personally.)

[AVENCakes]

Statistically speaking 6% of rapists will ever see a day in jail, I believe this figure represents convicted/non-convicted and reported rapes, however I do not think it represents non-reported so the figure is probably lower, but I could be mistaken. You can check out rainn.org for some really good information on statistics.

If I remember correctly- the 6% was derived from the fact that I think either a very large minority or a majority of rapes go unreported, btu it wouldn't surprise me if that was only reported rapes, either, and the figure could be 3% or lower.

[ZenFeminist]

My point in bringing this up is for those people that do identify as asexual and homoromantic that they should not be put in a position where they are constantly on the fence.

But, I can't see any reason why people couldn't be feel completely part of both even if they aren't combined. I function as a full member in several online communities and being and feeling a member of both if both apply. I can't really see differentiating from the LGBT community would be any more of a problem as me being, let's say, a part of the Asexual community and the podcasting community, sometimes even at the same time.

You are absolutely correct in that you can function as a member of both the asexual community and the podcasting community. This similarity poses a problem however, because as far as I am aware there is no social injustice that the podcasting community fights for on it's own behalf. It doesn't have any reason to exclude asexuals from being contributing members or forcing them to make the choice of being either/or, but not both.

I am certain that most podcasting communities will recognize that you can be both a member of their community and the Asexual community and vise versa. It is not the individual that puts themselves on the proverbial fence, but rather the carelessness of two 'groups'. I do want to clarify that I am speaking from an activist perspective, which I thought I had, but perhaps not.

[ZenFeminist]

Briefly onto spousal rape. As far as the law is concerned rape is rape. It no longer matters (in the eyes of the law) whether the rape was stranger, acquaintance, friend, or domestic (married and non-married couples).

You are absolutely right that this is the case in the US and most Western European countries. However you have to remember that not everyone in this world lives in the US or Europe - in fact most people live elsewhere. And laws in many of these countries are still significantly behind on this issue.

You are right I should have said that I was speaking in only US continental terms. I did not mean to exclude any other country and I would hope that people are aware of how bleak rape laws and other issues are for minority groups in other areas of the world.

[der Einrad]

Please, let's not and say we didn't.

I certainly don't consider myself part of "the" "queer" "movement" and find such fixations childish, selfish and tedious. I have mixed views of gay rights:

• Yes, gays and lesbians should be able to marry.
  
• Yes, gays and lesbians should be able to adopt children.
  
• Yes to hospital visitation, funerals, estates and the like, essentially every right that heterosexual couples take for granted.
  
• No, the government can't force a church to rent its gazebo for a gay marriage under threat of yanking tax-exempt status. If your religion says it's wrong, then let that govern your behavior, but not someone else's. Religion may not take control of government, and the flipside to that is that government may not take control of religion.
  
• Don't-ask-don't-tell is a perfectly reasonable policy and should in fact be extended to inappropriate discussion of heterosexual matters as well, which is equaly irrelevant to military operations. Anyone who whines about this perhaps does not have the right mindset for military service.
  
• Transgenders should be allowed to transition, once, on their own dime, and governments should acknowledge the new gender at no cost to them.
  
• Whether by birth or operation, there are only two legal genders, pick one at most once and keep it. "Genderqueer" is not worth taking seriously at an official level. Feel free to dress however you want, but if it's striking and confrontational, don't act surprised and indignant over certain reactions.
  
• Likewise, "polyamory" and the like are not worth taking seriously.
  
• Normal vanilla heterosexual sex has more purpose than any other sex, and most of us owe our existence to it, and I don't forget that. Here I'm speaking as a mammal.
  
• Whichever gender you are, you should be allowed to pursue what interests and fulfills you--no vocation should be closed to any gender.
  
• That doesn't mean you expect to alter age-old institutions to your liking: if you're a woman and want to be a Catholic priest, either become a nun or change denominations to Anglican or whatnot. If those vocations are traditionally segregated by gender, either respect that separation fully or find an institution that suits you better. You're lucky to live in a time and place where you have the right to choose.
  
• Not a single stupid dollar needs to be spent in implementing these freedoms, nor should it be.
  
• Sexuality is a stupid thing to "celebrate" as is any other arbitrary detail of a person's identity. It's stupid to be proud or ashamed of what you ARE. Instead be proud or ashamed of what you DO from one day to the next. Make good use of that free will.
  

Having grown up routinely slandered as "queer" by rednecks too ignorant to know any better, for reasons as bizarre as my out-of-town accent, I certainly have plenty of sympathy for the plight of gays, lesbians, intersexes and transgenders. As far as being asexual goes, I expect any awkward explanation to anyone who wants to know will happen once and be brief and to the point, after which I will refer anyone in doubt to AVEN.

[AVENCakes]

Transgenders should be allowed to transition, once, on their own dime, and governments should acknowledge the new gender at no cost to them.

If it's on their own dime, why shouldn't they be allowed to transition as many times as they feel necessary? It's not at the cost of anyone. If a person wants to get 100 boob jobs or nose jobs or whatever- they're allowed ot. Why can't a person transition a few times if they feel the need? Especially since a lot of therapists push the binary- people will transition too far just to try and get something right. Are yous aying they should be stuck there because of someone else's ignorance?

When you're paying for my transition, then you can have some say in what I can and can't do. If it's coming out of my pocket- then I'm going to get what I want.

Whether by birth or operation, there are only two legal genders, pick one at most once and keep it. "Genderqueer" is not worth taking seriously at an official level. Feel free to dress however you want, but if it's striking and confrontational, don't act surprised and indignant over certain reactions.

I'm neutrois. Are you saying that my gender isn't valid enough that I should be treated as who I am just as much as any binary?

Actually- why do we need legal genders? What purpose does it serve?

Likewise, "polyamory" and the like are not worth taking seriously.

Why? Because society says you're only allowed to love one person at a time?

Sexuality is a stupid thing to "celebrate" as is any other arbitrary detail of a person's identity. It's stupid to be proud or ashamed of what you ARE. Instead be proud or ashamed of what you DO from one day to the next. Make good use of that free will.

Actually, people celebrating sexuality celebrate what they DO. Technically, the part of sexuality you celebrate is a choice. You choose to be true to who you are- you choose to be with who you're attracted to, have sex with who you want or not to have sex at all. Every single gay person could lie to themselves and force themselves into a straight marriage. Instead, they choose to be true to themselves. And that is what they celebrate.

[Tayune]

You know, I seriously hope not.

I dislike any sort of movement and I hate being associated with any.

I have nothing against homosexuals or whatever...

I just think Asexuals are a group of our own.

Just think about it for a sec. We are like the non-sexual equivalent of sexuals.

Sexuals have hetero, homo, bi, etc. We also have that.

The difference is, they are sexual and we are not.

Plus, it seems strange to have Hetero-romantics for the queer movement (support, that's fine but as actually a part of it - nah).

I don't care if individual asexuals wanna be a part of it - but I don't think we all should be a part of it.

Also, if we wanna start a movement - then I think it's better to do it ourselves (well, excluding me, I'm gonna stick to just explaining to a few people).

I gotta say, I agree with the fact that we don't belong with them (as a group I mean).

Plus... Why would we even wanna be a part of it? It just doesn't make sense to me.

But, don't get me wrong, I think asexuality should be touched on slightly since homosexuality is more widely known that is.

Most people don't have a clue about asexuality so I think maybe while learning it in biology (asexual reproduction) you could say it's also a sexuality and blah blah blah. But not really stay on it for too long, because the actual lesson needs to be taught.

Just my thoughts on it.

[Illuminated]

Don't-ask-don't-tell is a perfectly reasonable policy

No, it's not; it's the only policy where gays are not simply allowed to be fired for being homosexual, but rather they must be. And no policy that mandates the firing of a couple hundred Arabic translators is reasonable, especially when the country is involved in a war with an Arab-speaking country. DADT is a giant piece of flaming shit thrown into the face of those gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives to serve their country.

Feel free to dress however you want, but if it's striking and confrontational, don't act surprised and indignant over certain reactions.

Should we likewise humor the petty small-mindedness that leads to opposition towards the establishment of gender-neutral bathrooms, which makes use of scare tactics that argue such bathrooms will lead to a huge leap in child molestation, when the point is to escape such petty, small-mindedness in the first place?

Likewise, "polyamory" and the like are not worth taking seriously.

Yeah, well, neither is asexuality.

That doesn't mean you expect to alter age-old institutions to your liking

That struggle is separate, as far as I know, from the broader legal struggles. That's more an attempt to modernize institutions that refuse to escape their outdated prejudices. And why shouldn't people be able to challenge such institutional practices? If people choose to engage in that struggle, does it just make you feel better to espouse disdain for their attempts at equality outside a purely social/political context?

Sexuality is a stupid thing to "celebrate" as is any other arbitrary detail of a person's identity. It's stupid to be proud or ashamed of what you ARE. Instead be proud or ashamed of what you DO from one day to the next. Make good use of that free will.

I don't know whether to find it quaint or stupid that people still seem intent on misinterpreting the point of LGBT pride; either way, it's about being who you are, and doing what you like, in the face of all the people who just generally want to shit all over you and your rights; it's about being who you are in the face of socio-political forces telling you to shut the fuck up and stop disrupting their privileged, hetero-normative peace.

Holy fucking shit people suck major ass.

That wasn't directed towards anyone in particular, but just a general weariness with having to deal with tons of shit and people still trying to act like it's completely justified, or unimportant, or should just be swept under the rug because they don't want to deal with it.

[der Einrad]

Don't-ask-don't-tell is a perfectly reasonable policy

No, it's not; it's the only policy where gays are not simply allowed to be fired for being homosexual, but rather they must be. And no policy that mandates the firing of a couple hundred Arabic translators is reasonable, especially when the country is involved in a war with an Arab-speaking country. DADT is a giant piece of flaming shit thrown into the face of those gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives to serve their country.

As if to wilfully misunderstand, you quietly removed the rest of my point, that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be EXPANDED to include all orientations--essentially anything irrelevant to the mission will be acknowledged as such.

Should we likewise humor the petty small-mindedness that leads to opposition towards the establishment of gender-neutral bathrooms, which makes use of scare tactics that argue such bathrooms will lead to a huge leap in child molestation, when the point is to escape such petty, small-mindedness in the first place?

Businesses can decide what they want to offer in their bathrooms. If I'm a business owner who needs to lease a building, the last thing I'm going to do is revovate the bathrooms according to whatever this week's gender idea is.

Likewise, "polyamory" and the like are not worth taking seriously.

Yeah, well, neither is asexuality.

From a government perspective, it isn't. I'm certainly not asking for any government benefits or protections. There is no government entity pressuring me to spawn grandchildren. Well, apart from Obama's $2 trillion deficit. <_<

As for dealing with my family: if there were no conflict about this, there would be conflict about something else. That's how family works. Conflict expands to fill the space available.

Sexuality is a stupid thing to "celebrate" as is any other arbitrary detail of a person's identity. It's stupid to be proud or ashamed of what you ARE. Instead be proud or ashamed of what you DO from one day to the next. Make good use of that free will.

I don't know whether to find it quaint or stupid that people still seem intent on misinterpreting the point of LGBT pride; either way, it's about being who you are, and doing what you like, in the face of all the people who just generally want to shit all over you and your rights; it's about being who you are in the face of socio-political forces telling you to shut the fuck up and stop disrupting their privileged, hetero-normative peace.

I can get behind the word "dignity" just fine, which is probably what some gays really mean when they say "pride." And I disdain modern American demonstrations and protests in general, whichever "side" is conducting them. If you look at footage from the Civil Rights movement, those people had dignity. They dressed in their nicest clothes and engaged in true nonviolent confrontation. There was no vulgar taunting or distasteful slander. Contrast that with just about any protest rally anywhere in the US today, and it's simply embarrassing. A majority of our culture has achieved a state of perprtual adolescence.

Holy fucking shit people suck major ass.

Indeed, so why join them in a "movement."

No, I am not "queer," and Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders and however many more alphabets are added to LGBTQ this week have very little in common--the ONE thing they have in common is that they let ignorant people put them in a single group. That seems backwards to me. "Queer" in the context of sexuality is a slanderous term in the US, much like the N-word is for black Americans, despite certain parties' misguided attempts to "reclaim" it--often while calling women "bitches" and "hos", most of whom I doubt appreciate it.

I don't actually regard Asexual as an "orientation" either, but I will concede that I've not come up with anything better yet. And I'm enough of a "joiner" to show up here, but it's more for not having to explain myself than to "celebrate" anything. I'm an individual, I'll advance my interests on my own, and I say fuck "movements."

[der Einrad]

(Help! Scare quotes are taking over my life!)

[Illuminated]

As if to wilfully misunderstand, you quietly removed the rest of my point, that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be EXPANDED to include all orientations--essentially anything irrelevant to the mission will be acknowledged as such.

Only because the rest of your post seemed as woefully misinformed as the beginning. Tell me, if the top student in her military class, in all respects headed towards a brilliant military career (a fact agreed upon by anyone who has taught her) goes out to a bar with some classmates and introduces her friends to her girlfriend, why does she deserve to be discharged? I really don't get fucking get it. Again, DADT is a giant piece of flaming shit.

Should we likewise humor the petty small-mindedness that leads to opposition towards the establishment of gender-neutral bathrooms, which makes use of scare tactics that argue such bathrooms will lead to a huge leap in child molestation, when the point is to escape such petty, small-mindedness in the first place?

Businesses can decide what they want to offer in their bathrooms. If I'm a business owner who needs to lease a building, the last thing I'm going to do is revovate the bathrooms according to whatever this week's gender idea is.

My question was whether we should pander to the lowest common denominator by allowing their prejudices power over, well, anything. Or should we rather be critical of their ignorance and challenge it?

From a government perspective, it isn't. I'm certainly not asking for any government benefits or protections. There is no government entity pressuring me to spawn grandchildren. Well, apart from Obama's $2 trillion deficit. <_<

Well, governmentally, perhaps not. I've actually not thought about the intersection of those two.

I can get behind the word "dignity" just fine, which is probably what some gays really mean when they say "pride." And I disdain modern American demonstrations and protests in general, whichever "side" is conducting them. If you look at footage from the Civil Rights movement, those people had dignity. They dressed in their nicest clothes and engaged in true nonviolent confrontation. There was no vulgar taunting or distasteful slander. Contrast that with just about any protest rally anywhere in the US today, and it's simply embarrassing. A majority of our culture has achieved a state of perprtual adolescence.

Kudos for changing your point about pride because your first attempt was a giant, ignorant fail. Also, times have changed; no one seems to have much dignity lying around anymore. That's a general problem not simply attached to issues of pride or protests.

And despite the rather loud displays, there's still a larger human point fueling LGBT pride; it's still there, and even though it might not seem as "dignified" as it once was, that doesn't make the point any less important or meaningful.

Indeed, so why join them in a "movement."

Because some people suck less ass than others, and I like to hang out with them every once in a while.

No, I am not "queer," and Gays, Lesbians, Transgenders and however many more alphabets are added to LGBTQ this week have very little in common--the ONE thing they have in common is that they let ignorant people put them in a single group. That seems backwards to me. "Queer" in the context of sexuality is a slanderous term in the US, much like the N-word is for black Americans, despite certain parties' misguided attempts to "reclaim" it--often while calling women "bitches" and "hos", most of whom I doubt appreciate it.

I don't actually regard Asexual as an "orientation" either, but I will concede that I've not come up with anything better yet. And I'm enough of a "joiner" to show up here, but it's more for not having to explain myself than to "celebrate" anything. I'm an individual, I'll advance my interests on my own, and I say fuck "movements."

Sure, "queer" was a pejorative. "Gay" was never used all too positively, either. And "homosexual" was the term to describe our mental illness. Also, "queer" isn't our n-word, "faggot" is. Again, times have changed, and a lot of young people never experience "queer" as a the major pejorative it might have used to be; a pejorative sometimes, maybe, but just because ignorant school-children (and older "kids" with intellectually-stunted vocabularies) throw "gay" around the playground like they're tough shit doesn't mean I'm going to stop calling myself "gay," either.

I'm an individual, too, but it's not as easy as going out and getting rights for myself. You know that's not how it works, right? If I support a cause strongly, I'll join it; if I like the interests/activities of a club, I'll join it. What the fuck does joining a movement have to do with individuality?

[asexual1976]

This thread is going way off course - which was probably inevitable.

Just to take up one of the many points :

As if to wilfully misunderstand, you quietly removed the rest of my point, that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be EXPANDED to include all orientations--essentially anything irrelevant to the mission will be acknowledged as such.

VERY bad idea. Depite what people that have no expierence in dealing with the military may think, soldiers are not brainless killing machines. They are human beings. Morale and mental well-being are extremly important for the success of mission. And if you exclude all soliders from marrying, having sex or even talking about these subjects, you won't get very many people to join - in fact most of them would leave.

Btw : The Catholic church has a policy that is very similar to DADT (for allsexual orientations)- and they're having a hell of a prpblem filling their positions for priest and monk.

[sinisterporpoise]

I did not think this thread would get this many responses, to be honest. But on the whole, their support could help people make more aware that we're out there.

And I think a few of the responses fall into the "ick! I can't be gay, that's yucky." category.

[der Einrad]

I did not think this thread would get this many responses, to be honest. But on the whole, their support could help people make more aware that we're out there.

And I think a few of the responses fall into the "ick! I can't be gay, that's yucky." category.

Heh. Do I take it correctly you've never found yourself trying to convince a gay person that asexuality exists? That you're not just in the closet? Invincible ignorance transcends all "orientations."

As for the thread... you posted a good topic. A worthwhile discussion IMO.

[sinisterporpoise]

Actually, I had a conversation very much like this recently on the Internet, but my real life circle of friends are gaming nerds, which might have a slightly higher portion of celibate and asexual people than does the average population, so sex comes up as a serious topic very infrequently. They know I'm a virgin, but they assume it's because I don't want to have sex before marriage, although a few have the unspoken assumption that I've had sex and just don't talk about it. (It is none of their business anyway.)

Not to belabor the point which I missed, but some people here just don't like the idea of being associated with gays and lesbians. That's all I was trying to say. We could, however, use their help in letting people know that we exist.

[asexual1976]

Not to belabor the point which I missed, but some people here just don't like the idea of being associated with gays and lesbians. That's all I was trying to say. We could, however, use their help in letting people know that we exist.

You are correct - I'm just wondering why. Is it because they genuinely don't believe that they are a part of this group or is it that many of them have unresoved homophia issues. Just some food for thought...

[TheMuffinMan]

Um. As a soldier, I can tell you that banning discourse about sex and sexual orientation would be a horrible idea, especially among the lower enlisted. I'm in a relatively intellectual unit-for God's sake, we just had a talk about communism that looked at its intent and its application throughout history without devolving into brainless "ZOMG COMMUNISM WAS GOOD ON PAPER" "WOMG IT'S A STUPID IDEA AND YOU'RE A COMMIE", and I've yet to run into another social group that's even CLOSE to capable of that. But sexual discussion is STILL a huge part of the military, as is name-calling and such (as, ironically, it increases morale.) DADT is a very bad policy. I can understand why it may be in place for some of the more backwards units, but in all honesty, it's not even enforced for a good portion of the military anymore. As one of my friends told a soldier who recently outed himself, "No one cares that you're a fag. Stop crying like a bitch." (And believe me, that was said and was taken in the most comforting way imaginable.) Of course, you'll still have to have thick skin, but that's true for anyone in the military.

[der Einrad]

Sidetracked indeed. I suppose I agree with the parts of the DADT policy that could just as easily fall under the Fraternization rules. In that respect, it can be done away with as a separate policy singling out gays and lesbians and simply subsumed under fraternization. I would be curious to read your opinions "as a soldier" about the fraternization rules. That seems to be its own larger issue (if not quite as controversial.)

[der Einrad]

'm just wondering why. Is it because they genuinely don't believe that they are a part of this group or is it that many of them have unresoved homophia issues. Just some food for thought...

I don't think I know what an "unresolved homophobia issue" is, what it looks like, or how to measure or detect it. I can say that I do own Erasure's entire discography, every remix and B-side, and I still can't figure out what their lyrics mean. That is really my only unresolved issue having to do with gay people.

[Sally]

You are correct - I'm just wondering why. Is it because they genuinely don't believe that they are a part of this group or is it that many of them have unresoved homophia issues. Just some food for thought...

You'd have to ask each poster that question, wouldn't you, without insinuating something about the whole group? Who's to determine whether their feelings are "genuine" but them? *Unresolved homophobia issues indeed... <_< *

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

You are correct - I'm just wondering why. Is it because they genuinely don't believe that they are a part of this group or is it that many of them have unresoved homophia issues. Just some food for thought...

You'd have to ask each poster that question, wouldn't you, without insinuating something about the whole group? Who's to determine whether their feelings are "genuine" but them? *Unresolved homophobia issues indeed... <_< *

As someone who about has an embolism when people think things about her that aren't true (even if there's nothing bad about the thing that isn't true besides its falseness), it occurs to me that some asexuals, especially those who have a "straight" romantic orientation or are aromantic, might not want to be associated with gays because it will be assumed that the asexuals are actually gay. Or maybe some worry that if asexuals are associated with the queer movement, idiots will conclude that asexuals are repressed gays/bis/whatever.

Meh...until the asexuals get our own parade, I'm still marching in the Northampton Pride next year wearing an AVEN shirt.

[Sally]

Meh...until the asexuals get our own parade, I'm still marching in the Northampton Pride next year wearing an AVEN shirt.

That's cool. If we were generally accepted by gay sexuals as being asexuals by orientation, and not represessed gays or mixed-up heterosexuals, I'd feel differently. It just seems that we're not given any more cred by gay sexuals than by hetero sexuals.

[Min Farshaw]

[*]Transgenders should be allowed to transition, once, on their own dime, and governments should acknowledge the new gender at no cost to them.

A few years ago, a local health authority here in the UK decided to seriously cut back on funding for treatment of Transgendered people. Their reason? Well, they looked over the figures, and decided that the increase in the suicide rate that the funding cut would bring wouldn't be large enough to cause a stir.

For the record, I paid for 99.9% of my treatment straight out of my own pocket, and am only just beginning to get on top of the loans that I had to take out to acomplish this. But my God, I'm glad that my country actually has an option for people who couldn't manage to finance it themselves, even if the NHS route isn't particularly dignified. The fact is, I pay my taxes just like everyone else, and am just as entitled to treatment for any condition as anyone else is.

[Sciatrix]

For myself, as an aromantic asexual, I don't identify as straight. How can I? I can see how a heteroromantic asexual might be able to, but I don't see how my total lack of interest in the opposite sex could be described as "straight" for me. So I do tend to quietly identify under "queer," with the understanding that "queer" means "out of the ordinary, unusual" within a sexuality context.

On the other hand, I don't exactly have a dog in the fight that the vast majority of the LGBT community has; I don't need rights, and like most asexuals my activism, as such, is limited to a quiet desire to be acknowledged occasionally. In addition, of my RL friend group, most are straight. One is bi. (She was, incidentally, also the only one who had ever heard of asexuality and her response to my coming out was "oh, that's pretty cool.")

So I'm conflicted. Overall I think I usually stick with "yeah, I probably count as queer, but overall I think I'm best classified as an ally." I actually tend to view gay issues with approximately the same glasses I view feminist issues with: "this is social injustice and it needs to be addressed right now." I also take a long view with LGBT issues--the more gender- and sex-linked neuroticsms we purge from our culture, I suspect the easier it will be to get people to take asexuality seriously. After all, if people internalize the idea that sexuality isn't a one-size-fits-all sort of behavior, won't it be easier for them to get the idea that some of us aren't wired to want any? I've had the best luck explaining myself to people who "get" bi people, because it seems to be easier for them to understand that just as some people are wired to be interested in both genders (going gender binary here for a moment because it's easier), some of us are wired to be interested in neither.

[der Einrad]

[*]Transgenders should be allowed to transition, once, on their own dime, and governments should acknowledge the new gender at no cost to them.

A few years ago, a local health authority here in the UK decided to seriously cut back on funding for treatment of Transgendered people. Their reason? Well, they looked over the figures, and decided that the increase in the suicide rate that the funding cut would bring wouldn't be large enough to cause a stir.

For the record, I paid for 99.9% of my treatment straight out of my own pocket, and am only just beginning to get on top of the loans that I had to take out to acomplish this. But my God, I'm glad that my country actually has an option for people who couldn't manage to finance it themselves, even if the NHS route isn't particularly dignified. The fact is, I pay my taxes just like everyone else, and am just as entitled to treatment for any condition as anyone else is.

Ultimately, everyone pays for healthcare out of their own pockets. For example, I'm glad Obama is extending equal heath coverage to gay partners of federal employees. But I would prefer that all Americans pay for their own health insurance individually or through charities instead of hiding the costs and thus impeding individual control.

Among other things, our advanced American technology has made us the f a t t e s t people in the world, with Mexico a distant second and you folks in the UK a rapidly advancing third, soon to pass Mexico. Univeral "single-payer" healthcare, or our current system of healthcare premiums hidden in the employer side of the tax equation, or anything else that makes the true cost invisible to those of us paying it, just makes the incentive to live healthier less visible to all of us. Right now we pay for it by printing money and devaluing our currency. 70% of our healthcare costs are purely behavioral in origin. The incentives to change the behavior are there, but they're hidden, diffused and thus frustrated.

And I know very little about sex reassignment surgery, but I do know that even the best results are inescapably crude and variable, which is an impediment to insurers offering coverage due to real liability dangers. It's quite a tall order when you're battling against an entire chromosome with a gender program written into it. You might as well graft on a third arm. Surgery or no surgery, I could still love a transgender woman as a woman, but my being ase makes that easy.

[Min Farshaw]

I'm not sure what relevance 'incentives to live healthier' have when it comes to this matter. This isn't a case of people taking care of their bodies better to avoid doctor's bills, it's a case of 100% necessary medical treatment that simply can't be wished away by implying that people could simply change their behaviour.

[Sally]

70% of our healthcare costs are purely behavioral in origin.

I don't know where that figure appeared; I haven't seen it anywhere. It's almost impossible to determine for certain what health outcomes were due to behavior. Even if it were, the fact remains that it is extremely expensive to buy healthy food now but much cheaper to buy unhealthy food. There's a reason why poor people are fat and wealthy people are thin, whereas the opposite used to be the case. The marketing of cheap fast food to poor people has increased over the years, at the same time that fruits and vegetables have gone up in price. The environmental degradation we've seen over the last 50 years has probably increased the incidence of cancer and other ailments, and that can't be considered a "behavioral" situation. Add to that that many Americans are now working two jobs (or none) and are desperate to feed their kids. If you're a father and your child could either have an apple or a cheeseburger for dinner, which would you choose? Do you think your child would be happy or filled up with the apple? It's a bad choice, but parents must make it now.

Blaming individual Americans for the results of corporate marketing (including insurance companies and hospitals, most of which are corporations) and for physicians hawking pharmaceuticals while getting paid by the pharma companies, and for the increase in highly expensive operations and medical devices is unfair. It's a lot more complex than that. We have to go after the causes, not the end user.

[Queue]

Don't-ask-don't-tell is a perfectly reasonable policy and should in fact be extended to inappropriate discussion of heterosexual matters as well, which is equaly irrelevant to military operations. Anyone who whines about this perhaps does not have the right mindset for military service.

As if to wilfully misunderstand, you quietly removed the rest of my point, that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be EXPANDED to include all orientations--essentially anything irrelevant to the mission will be acknowledged as such.

If this simply meant there were a policy saying that members of the military shouldn't make a scene out of any element of their personal life, I might understand that. But I do not believe it is even possible for there to be a heterosexual version of DADT as you suggest.

DADT doesn't just tell gay servicemembers to please politely refrain from shouting their orientation from the hilltops. It's not just asking them if they could "not to mention it". Servicemembers have been discharged for holding hands with someone of the same sex while off-duty. Can be discharged for attempting to enter into a completely legal same-sex marriage. It's not just about keeping work and your personal life separate, which I could see as a legitimate military goal. DADT requires the total cessation of any behavior that could cause you to be percieved as a homosexual, on or off duty.

So unless we're going to mandate total celibacy for all members of the military, stop providing health coverage and housing to the spouses of heterosexual soldiers, prohibit heterosexual marriage, and require that they avoid all real or perceived heterosexual behavior off-duty, you can't "expand" Don't Ask, Don't Tell to cover heterosexuals.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is responsible for the discharge of over 12,000 servicemembers since its introduction. It it not a "reasonable" policy, and saying so does not indicate a mindset incompatible with military service.

Ahem.

Sorry. DADT is my personal... Cause, I guess. Any tone issues above aren't directed personally at anyone. I just get so frustrated.

To avoid completely ignoring the topic of the thread: I don't know if asexuality is intrinsically queer; I tend to think it is, if in varying degrees. But I'm asexual, and I know I'm queer. That may not translate to anyone else's experiences, and that's fine. But for me, I'm asexual and I'm queer and the former does contribute to the latter in my case.