View Single Post
Old 01-25-2013, 11:30 AM
InsaneMystic InsaneMystic is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 261

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
I have friends who are gender fluid and identify more as a male or female or neutral depending on where they are in life at the time. Does that mean they should stifle their identity as gender fluid just to avoid causing problems for trans* folks, who might be told "Look, this person used to feel like she was a boy, but now she feels like a girl. Just wait it out and you'll feel like a girl again." ?

But perhaps it's more accurate, then, to say that my orientation "is" something like "a/sexually fluid" (I don't know what asexual equivalent would be of gender fluid). I.e. it's not my "orientation" that changes, that would always be "fluid" ... but that means sometimes I'm a sexual and sometimes I'm an asexual. I don't know, I haven't thought about it that way before. I'm definitely going to give it some thought. Sorta like how a gender fluid person always "is gender fluid" and sometimes "feels more like a male" or "feels more like a female."
I identify as genderqueer myself, actually. I don't think I could take myself serious if I ID'ed as trans one day, neutrois the other, and something yet more difficult to be put into words on a third day... I very much relate to how you put it in your second paragraph - the queerness/fluidity is my gender ID, the day-to-day differences are just "day-form" feelings.

Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
What I am going to say is this: It's not that I bring it up every time someone talks about asexuality, nor do I have a tendency of bringing up orientation fluidity whenever people talk about sexual orientation in general. I recognize that the majority of people who identify as asexual have always identified that way, and can't imagine ever identifying otherwise. But in this case, someone explicitly said "Asexual orientation cannot change." I had to pipe in that this was not always the case. As much as I agree with not giving the extreme Right more fodder for discrimination, I also don't want anyone to feel like they're "wrong" in feeling that their orientation is fluid, and feeling like they "have to choose" one or the other.
Point taken. Put like this, I can completely agree with you.

Originally Posted by opalescent View Post
This statement really bothers me. First of all, it's just wrong. Many people experience and understand their sexuality as fluid. I identified as a lesbian for many years. Currently I date men and identify as bisexual/pansexual. I know many people like me. There is social pressure against acknowledging sexual fluidity from within gay communities and from heterosexual people. So many folks rarely talk openly about how their sexuality had changed over time. Dan Savage encourages bisexual people to come out - in part to show that het and homo are far from the only points on the continuum. The existence of bisexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals and queers and other undefined folks highlights the fact that it's a continuum. As more people encounter and understand that sexuality can be fluid, more are being open about it. For example there are more men being more open about being bisexual.
I don't really get your point here. Even if fluidity didn't exist at all, it would still be the same wide spectrum... just that one's own point on the spectrum would be fixed.

Originally Posted by opalescent View Post
Second, it is wrong to allow people like right wing fundamentalist to set the parameters of what is marginal. These people don't 'believe' in evolution, think the earth is 6000 years old and preventing any meaningful action in global warming. They are anti-science, anti-reason and can't find a fact with both hands if one should happen to hit them in the ass. Not talking about fluidity or other uncomfortable, uncommon topics gives these irresponsible, dangerous people too much power. Stop it.

Finally I resent being called marginal. I don't know anyone who identifies as asexual. Not even demisexual. I didn't realize for a long time that such folks exist. I was ignorant and once I heard the term I've learned about it and try to keep in mind that someone I know or meet could be asexual. For me, asexual are marginal in my life. But they exist. Not talking about them or dismissing them as a tiny minority is not useful. In fact it could be actually dangerous if this silence prevents someone from learning a critical fact about themselves.

I realize you had no intention of making this personal. You are not saying anything many gay rights people have also said. And obviously I have strong feelings about it.
Huh. I guess we react to the word "marginal" quite differently. Being asexual - a spectrum that comprises an estimate of only 1% of all people - means that my experience is marginal, compared to the overwhelming majority of folks on this planet. That's just a statement of fact, I don't react negatively in any way to it.

Acknowledgement to exist is very important, I grant you that immediately - asexuality and bi/pan are easily the most ignored/erased minorities in that regard, not just by right wingers, but even by the gay and "sex-positive"* communities; in terms of being simply acknowledged to exist, even gay/Lesbian folks have a far easier time. And yet, that doesn't invalidate that a tiny minority is just that - a tiny minority. Should we be seen and heard? Yes, definitely. However, is our experience an adequate gauge to measure the majority of sexual identity on? Most probably not.

Overemphasis on fluidity, IMO, creates more problems than it solves - especially for aces and bi/pan people. I'd daresay we hear that "you'll grow out of it" way too often already (though at 38, it's finally dying down for me ); with fluidity being overstressed, I'd reckon we'd just get to hear it that much more often. I'd be afraid that not seeing fluidity as a comparatively rare occurrence and (semi-)permanency as statistically normal, brings too much a risk of ace and bi/pan identities becoming (further) invalidated and silenced.

* Putting "sex-positive" in airquotes there just for one single reason - true sex-positivity has to mean to support everyone's right and freedom to have as much or as little sex in their lives as they want (provided it's all SSC, of course). IMO, someone calling themselves "sex-positive", but who automatically ridicules folks who out of their own free choice remain virgins all their life, is false advertising.
Reply With Quote